« JULY 27 MCCAIN AD PUTS OBAMA ON $100 BILL!!! | ohiomeister's Blog | Rick Warren of Saddleback Church Still Thinks Iraq War was Justifiied »
FactCheck.org Gets Obama Energy Ad Wrong
How easily duped are the folks at FactCheck.org? Do they now know anything about election law? Do they not have any connections in D.C. to former FEC attorneys? They could have just called them up for clarification.
What am I talking about? This:
<blockquote>Much of the money given in June went to a joint fund-raising venture of the McCain campaign, the Republican National Committee and several state GOP committees, an unknown portion of which was passed through to the McCain campaign itself. The Post said its report was based on an analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund, a group that advocates taxpayer financing of political campaigns. That group's Campaign Money Watch project released a report July 31, titled "It's a Gusher: As John McCain Fights For Big Oil, They Open Their Wallets." That report refers to $1.2 million that went to "McCain’s Victory ’08 Fund," a joint fundraising committee. The report does not say how much actually ended up in McCain's own campaign coffers and how much went to other Republican candidates and committees.</blockquote>
This money is all <b>for John McCain!</b> Ask anyone in politics. 100% of that money is going to John McCain. That's how these joint fundraising accounts work. That's the whole point of setting them up! It's not even some sort of legal fiction. It's specifically permitted. Ask any political fundraiser or big donor. Ask the campaigns, ask the FEC. Ask anyone!
Recommend so we can keep fact checking the fact checkers (and avoid pox on both of your houses type political coverage!). They have a duty to their readers to put out better work product than what they have done in this case. They should be honest and realistic, not overly superficial in their analysis of campaign financing.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/factcheck-org8
What am I talking about? This:
<blockquote>Much of the money given in June went to a joint fund-raising venture of the McCain campaign, the Republican National Committee and several state GOP committees, an unknown portion of which was passed through to the McCain campaign itself. The Post said its report was based on an analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund, a group that advocates taxpayer financing of political campaigns. That group's Campaign Money Watch project released a report July 31, titled "It's a Gusher: As John McCain Fights For Big Oil, They Open Their Wallets." That report refers to $1.2 million that went to "McCain’s Victory ’08 Fund," a joint fundraising committee. The report does not say how much actually ended up in McCain's own campaign coffers and how much went to other Republican candidates and committees.</blockquote>
This money is all <b>for John McCain!</b> Ask anyone in politics. 100% of that money is going to John McCain. That's how these joint fundraising accounts work. That's the whole point of setting them up! It's not even some sort of legal fiction. It's specifically permitted. Ask any political fundraiser or big donor. Ask the campaigns, ask the FEC. Ask anyone!
Recommend so we can keep fact checking the fact checkers (and avoid pox on both of your houses type political coverage!). They have a duty to their readers to put out better work product than what they have done in this case. They should be honest and realistic, not overly superficial in their analysis of campaign financing.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/factcheck-org8
Advertisement
I sent this email to Matthew DeLong of the Washington Independent, who blogged about the FactCheck piece.
FactCheck analyzed the amount of McCain donations from oil companies improperly by excluding donations to the Joint Victory Fund with the RNC. That fund is entirely for John McCain. 100%. Please call any FEC lawyer, any campaign finance expert, any campaign fundraising operative, any big donor who knows how this works and ask them. Go read any article about McCain or Obama's fundraising, including Obama's birthday party in Boston yesterday. They are asking donors to max out to them directly and to give $28,500 to the Joint Victory fund, a fund dedicated to the election of the presidential candidate. That is specifically why these funds are set up and how they are used.
FactCheck is mistaken by excluding these big donations. In fact, because the Joint Victory Fund donation limit ($28,500) is up to 12 times higher than the individual limit ($2300 for primary for McCain, since he accepted public financing for the general election, $4600 for the primary and general for Obama since he opted out), they are even more pernicious. The state party limits operate in exactly the same way, and I think those individual donation limits are $10,000 per state.
August 5, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is your point?
This is one of the most poorly written posts I've ever read.
August 6, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that FactCheck is wrong to criticize Obama about the amount John McCain raised from oil companies because Obama is right and FactCheck is wrong. Money donated to the joint fund with McCain and the RNC is McCain money. The McCain camp specifically noted that it is.
August 26, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama caught being dishonest.
Not surprising.
August 5, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feel free to actually make an allegation, as opposed to a smear. (I'd normally ask for an offer of proof to go with the allegation, but that may be a bridge too far.)
August 5, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you asking?
Here is the FEC website listing the amounts an individual can give.
http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml#How_much_can_I_contribute
Here is the FEC guide to joint fundraising.
http://www.fec.gov/info/PartyGuide/AppendixB.htm
August 6, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, eastside was responding to "truthseeker."
Ironic that "truthseeker" is apparently not interested in the truth!
August 6, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know it's probably a challenge for you, but you might want to try actually reading Ohiomeister's original posting.
August 6, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
can you post this on dailykos, people would then send mass emails to the site and make them change their distortions
August 5, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
dude, Factcheck.org is not afraid of the Daily Kos.
When two Daily Kos diarists falsely accused Hillary's camp of deliberately darkening a picture of Barack Obama in order to make him seem darker, Factcheck.org interviewed experts who concluded that the ad as a whole was darkened, because in advertising negative ads are usually darkened for the desired effect.
Daily Kos immediately tried to harass Factcheck.org, which stuck by its story and now we all know the Daily Kos was simply engaging in race-baiting, as usual.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html
August 5, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And somehow the darkening accounted for widening Obama's nose as well? And making his brow lower and more ape-like? Or was that some silly mistaken arithmetic conversion done by pros who know how to transfer images?
What this board needs is truthseeker78, successor to unsuccessful 77, failed cherry-picker: you neglect to mention that factcheck.org does not prove anything, they just say that the (a) the darkening could be an error, or (b) the darkening could be the standard negative ad technique, with no evidence (for who can read minds) that the Clinton campaign intended racial overtones.
How convenient the serendipity when darkening to show someone in a menacing way also works racially.
August 6, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cross-posted at Daily Kos here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/6/113316/7955/938/563507
August 6, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Factcheck.org is not only perpetually full of shit, but it has become an anti-Obama organization. They have been all over him for the pettiest shit ever. They have no credibility.
August 6, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Factcheck.org is a pretty great organization, and if you look at their current front page, the vast majority of debunking is dedicated to calling b.s. on McCain's ads and allegations against Obama.
Look, I'm all about Obama, but he is not perfect (shock!) and neither is his campaign. That the Obama campaign sometimes polishes things to make them seem a little more shiny than they actually are is understandable. But it's an altogether different thing when the McCain camp dishes out bald-faced lies. I, for one, am glad Factcheck.org is out there.
August 6, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am, too, but we have to be vigilant that they actually do fact-checking and not what the traditional media does, which is to constantly run on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand stories that don't point out when the GOP is totally making things up or try to balance GOP fabrications by finding some nit-picky, overly formalistic problem with something a Dem said (I think this mistake is a clear example).
August 6, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
and if their name is "factcheck," they need to CHECK the FACTS. if they make a mistake (and people do make mistakes), they should fix it.
August 6, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Facts and truth left us long ago. Factcheck has been pretty good for the most part, however, I'd like them to do a bit more volume and add the news media to their factchecking since the networks and cable seem to actually report less and less factual information and more opinion.
Wolf Blitzer is one of the worst as far as never sharing a fact or being afraid to do so for some reason. Maybe he has the same Lieberman olfactory growth on his anal orifice that McCain has on his.
August 6, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I hate it when the traditional media pull their punches and don't call out GOP lies for the sake of supposed balance.
August 6, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please take off your blineders. Look at their name. They deal in facts. Because they don't take into account "everybody knows" stuff doesn't make them wrong. If it hasn't been factually established that all of the money is going to McCain, then it's not a fact, is it? And it is entirely possible that a portion of the money is going to downticket candidates. The guy at the top of the ticket doesn't get support on the ground in every state just by asking. He spreads some of the love around. In a Presidential year a lot of downticket races hurt for money because so many donors are focused on the POTUS race. Do you think Obama and Hillary gave all that money to super delgates because they had too much cash laying around?
Factcheck.org isn't wrong just because they don't buy into your assumptions.
August 6, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously don't know the details of campaign finance law. Under the FEC rules, these joint funds set up by the party and the candidate are to be used to benefit the candidate, McCain.
Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, even said on a conference call with the press that it was McCain money!!!
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/mccain_rakes_in_27_million_for.php
What more do you need? The McCain camp knows it's their money! Why can't FactCheck.org figure it out?
August 26, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Please take off your blineders. Look at their name. They deal in facts."
Uh...so your point is that if they have the word "fact" in their name, that proves that they deal in facts? Or do you HAVE a point?
I should point out that the word "check" also appears in their name, so the burden falls on THEM to look into where the money goes, not to simply say that Campaign Money Watch's report doesn't say where the money went. This makes factcheck.org very typical of corporate media...don't investigate, just juxtapose what the different bigshots are saying.
Speaking of which, when the Swift Boat libels came out, factcheck.org was utterly useless.
August 7, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink