Obama spends record amount of time fundraising

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Its official! Well, except Wisonsin of course, where he sent a Tweet instead.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/obama-spends-record-amount-of-time-fundraising-125445.html

No, it’s not your imagination: President Barack Obama is spending a whole lot of time fundraising, perhaps more than any incumbent president in history.

Including this week’s trip to California, he will have spent eight of 24 weekdays during the past month – that’s a third of them - on the road and collecting cash.

His event Thursday morning will mark his 153rd fundraiser since announcing his reelection bid last year. That’s nearly double the number that his predecessor George W. Bush had attended by this point in his reelection campaign, according to CBS’s Mark Knoller, who put 43’s early June number at 79.

Republicans have pounced on the increasing amount of time Obama has spent on fundraising, calling him “the campaigner-in-chief.” But Obama’s harried pace can also be viewed as just another example of what a big deal money has become in American elections, particularly since outside groups with unlimited contributions have dramatically upped the ante.

Obama campaign officials suggested that was the case.

"The Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for special interests to give unlimited amounts of money from secret donors in an attempt to defeat the president," campaign spokeswoman Katie Hogan said in a statement. "Therefore this campaign must and will continue to fight hard against the millions of dollars of negative advertising supported by Mitt Romney and his undisclosed special interest allies."

Obama, like all federal candidates, is basically limited to taking in $35,800 per donor -- $5,000 for a campaign committee and $30,800 for the national party. But since Citizens United in 2010, outside groups - that are not subject to the limits -- have been allowed to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns.

(PHOTOS: Fashion stars stepping out for Obama)

Despite his spending so much time fundraising, Obama and the groups supporting him are not taking in as much as Romney and the groups supporting him, according to a recent tally by POLITICO’s Ken Vogel. Romney and his backers, including super PACs, had raised a total of $402 million by the end of April, compared to $340 million raised by Obama and his backers.

This post has been updated with comments from the Obama campaign.

**Easy E**

So, what's the point of this article?

To show us that Citizen's United is forcing our politicians to spend even more time fundraising and less time actually solving problems?

That's what I took from it.

**Orlanth**

In Obamas case less time on the job is probably a good thing.

**streamdragon**

The Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for special interests to give unlimited amounts of money from secret donors

**Piston Honda**

Why earn the presidency when you can just spend hundreds of millions of dollars to torch the

out of the opponent.

Then give handies to all your donors.

**Melissia**

RIP reading comprehensiona nd reading the whole article.

Despite his spending so much time fundraising, Obama and the groups supporting him are not taking in as much as Romney and the groups supporting him, according to a recent tally by POLITICO’s Ken Vogel. Romney and his backers, including super PACs, had raised a total of $402 million by the end of April, compared to $340 million raised by Obama and his backers.

It's not okay for Obama to spend a lot of time and money campaigning, but it IS okay for Romney to spend even MORE time and money campaigning. Lovely.

**streamdragon**

To be fair, Romney isn't the sitting President.

**Melissia**

streamdragon wrote:To be fair, Romney isn't the sitting President.

And?

There's no major international crisis going on that demands the president's attention. The president can't really do that much at home without congressional approval (Which Obama doesn't get even when he pushes through wholly Republican ideas, due to GOP obstructionism), and what he can do, he has done (taken public positions, threaten veto of stupid bills, etc).

Hell, Romney's done almost nothing but campaign to be president for something like twelve years now in comparison.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:
streamdragon wrote:To be fair, Romney isn't the sitting President.
And?

There's no major international crisis going on that demands the president's attention.

You mean other than:
*Syria
*Iran
*Afghanistan (you know that war thing)
*Yemen
*European crisis
*Mexican narco war.

**streamdragon**

There are plenty of things besides Frazz's list that require the president's attention that we simply aren't privy to. My point was that it's hard to compare the time the two spend campaigning as any sort of useful gauge, when Obama has an actual job and Romney is "just" a businessman.

**Melissia**

By that definition of "major international crisis", Frazzled, every single two-term president in semi-recent history-- including (or perhaps even especially, considering the cold war was escalating at the time) your beloved Reagan-- violated the standards you're applying to Obama.

So I suppose he's in good company?

**Chowderhead**

Melissia wrote:By that definition of "major international crisis", Frazzled, every single two-term president in semi-recent history-- including (or perhaps even especially, considering the cold war was escalating at the time) your beloved Reagan-- violated the standards you're applying to Obama.

So I suppose he's in good company?

That's not what he is saying.

He's merely pointing out the ongoing major international crises that are going on that demand his attention.

You know, to counter your argument and all that.

**Frazzled**

Exactly. Personally I don't think sitting politicians should campaign, or at best not except within a 3 month window before the election. of course I don't think there should be a permitted campaign more than three months before the eelction either.

**Melissia**

Chowderhead wrote:That's not what he is saying.

He's merely pointing out the ongoing major international crises that are going on that demand his attention.

You know, to counter your argument and all that.

And you're missing my own point, which is to say that these AREN'T, by the standards of the US presidency, major international crises that deserve immediate and total attention. Certainly they aren't at the level of the escalating cold war that Reagan faced, and yet Reagan put tons of hours in to campaigning and fund-raising as well.

And even then, Obama's done most of what he can do on them already barring sending in the marines, and that's pretty much a bad idea in all of those situations (even Europe, as tempting as it is)-- the US is still recovering its political capital after Iraq. The withdraw from Afghanistan has been planned out and just needs time to execute-- which is something that will be done by the commanders on the ground according to the plan. He has issued statements and placed sanctions regarding Syria, Iran, and Yemen, and any further action on those issues would likely require congress, and THAT isn't going to happen. It's unlikely that any of those governments really give a damn what the US government thinks unless we put a literal gun to their heads. And the European debt crisis... what exactly is he supposed to do, again? Aside from firing Bernanke whenever he gets re-elected, and putting someone in charge of the fed that doesn't get in to a mouth-frothing panic at the thought of inflation getting very slightly over two percent, there's not much he can do without congress. And any attempts at fiscal stimulus to counter the stupidity and political infighting going on in Europe isn't going to happen with a majority holding GOP, especially on an election year.

Combined with the fact taht Obama has spent a remarkably low amount of time on vacation during his term, it's hard to say that he hasn't spent a lot of time doing his job.

**Frazzled**

Iran is on its way to getting nukes. Thats not a crisis?
Syria is a killfest and now Al Qaeda is rearing its head. thats not an issue?
Yemen well...is Yemen.
Mexico is an open war. thats not a crisis?

Plus that whole, CEO running the government thing. But that seems to have been glossed over for several years now.

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:Iran is on its way to getting nukes. Thats not a crisis?

Setting aside issues of national sovereignty (I know the Arab nations won't), it's not really that much of a crisis for us. More of a crisis for Israel. And even then, Obama's administration HAS done things to counter this. So has Israel, for that matter (up to and including assassinations). I don't see anything being helped by Obama repeating himself louder as if he was a petulant child.

Frazzled wrote:Syria is a killfest and now Al Qaeda is rearing its head. thats not an issue?

II never said it was a non-issue. I said it wasn't a major international crisis by American standards. No matter what goes on in Syria, it won't effect the average American one iota-- unless, of course, we decide to send in the Marines. Then it'll be like Iraq all over again more likely than not.

Frazzled wrote:Yemen well...is Yemen.

And it will remain Yemen unless we nuke it a few times.

Frazzled wrote:Mexico is an open war. thats not a crisis?

It is a crisis. But Mexico has stated that it doesn't want our help, and so unless we're going to start invading Mexico again (would it be the third time we've had a war against them, or the fourth?), the most we can do is about what we're doing-- beefing up security on the border. Which we have, as shown by the remarkably low number of illegal immigrants successfully crossing the borders.

Frazzled wrote:Plus that whole, CEO running the government thing. But that seems to have been glossed over for several years now.

Decades, really.

**Lynata**

I found this article rather enlightening concerning the controversy: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/05/03/476210/rnc-attacks-obama-fundraisers/?mobile=nc

How it could even get this far, I have no idea. Who were the idiots that allowed PACs etc to happen?

For some reason, it's starting to look like those auctions where you could buy yourself the Papacy or the Roman Emperor's throne back then.

**Testify**

Everyone knows that you can solve problems by having politicians sitting around and talking about them.
If the president spent more time talking about the economy it'd improve. This is an empirical fact.
What a bad president.

**Easy E**

Frazzled wrote:Exactly. Personally I don't think sitting politicians should campaign, or at best not except within a 3 month window before the election. of course I don't think there should be a permitted campaign more than three months before the eelction either.

Yeah, and I think we should public fund elections and give every candidate that hits a certain petition benchmark the exact same amount of money, a free TV spot on C-span/PBS, and not allow any outside fundraising at all.

Now that we both know what the other thinks..... Who cares?

The current system demands all politicians to spend a lot of time raising money and fundraising, or you won't be a politician for very long. If there are things you want to get done as a Poli, then the fund raising is a big part of the job now. FACT.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Exactly. Personally I don't think sitting politicians should campaign, or at best not except within a 3 month window before the election. of course I don't think there should be a permitted campaign more than three months before the eelction either.

Yeah, and I think we should public fund elections and give every candidate that hits a certain petition benchmark the exact same amount of money, a free TV spot on C-span/PBS, and not allow any outside fundraising at all.

Now that we both know what the other thinks..... Who cares?

The current system demands all politicians to spend a lot of time raising money and fundraising, or you won't be a politician for very long. If there are things you want to get done as a Poli, then the fund raising is a big part of the job now. FACT.

I agree with you actually.

**Ouze**

Easy E wrote:[Yeah, and I think we should public fund elections and give every candidate that hits a certain petition benchmark the exact same amount of money, a free TV spot on C-span/PBS, and not allow any outside fundraising at all.

I agree with this, although my preferred system for elected office remains removing most of these positions that are currently elected offices and running the whole government other than some parts of the judiciary by lottery, just like jury duty, and pay all of them minimum wage.

"Your honor, I can't serve as President of the United States, because it would be a real hardship at my job, and I can't find a babysitter on the weekends, and..."

**Huffy**

Ouze wrote:
Easy E wrote:[Yeah, and I think we should public fund elections and give every candidate that hits a certain petition benchmark the exact same amount of money, a free TV spot on C-span/PBS, and not allow any outside fundraising at all.

I agree with this, although my preferred system for elected office remains removing most of these positions that are currently elected offices and running the whole government other than some parts of the judiciary by lottery, just like jury duty, and pay all of them minimum wage.

"Your honor, I can't serve as President of the United States, because it would be a real hardship at my job, and I can't find a babysitter on the weekends, and..."

I like this idea!! of course I'm sure when you say removing..you mean removing to the Alaskan gula...work fun camps right?

**IcyCool**

Piston Honda wrote:Why earn the presidency when you can just spend hundreds of millions of dollars to torch the out of the opponent.

Then give handies to all your donors.

Um, are you new to U.S. politics? With very few exceptions, the candidate who has the most in campaign funds wins the race. That goes for any elected public position. Anyone who thinks it works differently hasn't been paying attention.

**dogma**

No, it’s not your imagination: President Barack Obama is spending a whole lot of time fundraising, perhaps more than any incumbent president in history.

Take of it what you will.

**Melissia**

Meanwhile Obama's opponent has basically been doing non-stop fundraising for twelve years.

**Frazzled**

Thats ok. He's not being paid by me to actually do something. Since Obama's not performing his tasks and showing up for work, should we contact HR?

**IcyCool**

Frazzled wrote:Thats ok. He's not being paid by me to actually do something. Since Obama's not performing his tasks and showing up for work, should we contact HR?

I'll admit to not having read the article, but given that every president up for re-election spends time campaigning, where is it that you wish to draw the line? Clearly, you are irked that Obama has spent too much time campaigning. So, how much is too much? If any amount of time spent campaigning is too much, why are you only griping about it now? You don't strike me as the type to miss an opportunity to gripe.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:Thats ok. He's not being paid by me to actually do something. Since Obama's not performing his tasks and showing up for work, should we contact HR?

In a sense he isn't. Presidents didn't make campaigning the way it is today, we did. It is the way the public acts that requires them to do this. Do you really think politicians like the fact they have to start campaigning and fundraising pretty much the day after they are elected to office? We, the voters, deserve at least as much of the blame for the state of campaigning in the country.

**dogma**

Ahtman wrote:
In a sense he isn't. Presidents didn't make campaigning the way it is today, we did. It is the way the public acts that requires them to do this. Do you really think politicians like the fact they have to start campaigning and fundraising pretty much the day after they are elected to office? We, the voters, deserve at least as much of the blame for the state of campaigning in the country.

Smart man. Smart man.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Thats ok. He's not being paid by me to actually do something. Since Obama's not performing his tasks and showing up for work, should we contact HR?

In a sense he isn't. Presidents didn't make campaigning the way it is today, we did. It is the way the public acts that requires them to do this. Do you really think politicians like the fact they have to start campaigning and fundraising pretty much the day after they are elected to office? We, the voters, deserve at least as much of the blame for the state of campaigning in the country.

Fair point Ahtman.