Oh, how clever; McSame kinda rhymes with McCain. $40 million for this crap? Are these people still in middle-school? Displaced revenge for all the wedgies they endured, I suppose.

If you want to be entertained by the bastardization of names, the blogs are full of really good ones on Obama.

I' DONT GUESS YOU LIKED WHAT I WROTE
THIS A,M, CNOCERNING YOUR HOOK UP WITH OPRAH. AND OBAMA. YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT ALL THE POLL; SHOW WHERE DO YOU TAKE YOUR POLL'S I AM
70YR, OLD. AND NEVER BEEN ASK' SO IF
YOU ARE GOING TO SAY[ SADAM HUSSEIN OBAMA] IS A HEAD START ASKING MORE THAN IO' COME TO GEORGIA AND RUN
YOUR POLL''

I' DONT GUESS YOU LIKED WHAT I WROTE
THIS A,M, CNOCERNING YOUR HOOK UP WITH OPRAH. AND OBAMA. YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT ALL THE POLL; SHOW WHERE DO YOU TAKE YOUR POLL'S I AM
70YR, OLD. AND NEVER BEEN ASK' SO IF
YOU ARE GOING TO SAY[ SADAM HUSSEIN OBAMA] IS A HEAD START ASKING MORE THAN IO' COME TO GEORGIA AND RUN
YOUR POLL''

novamatt - "This is more like venture capital than it is a non-profit."

You got that right!

drindl - "Bush has come right out and said this for some time -- he has always intended to keep as may troops as possible in Iraq for as long as he's president."

I don't think that is what he has said. What I have heard him say is that he would do every thing possible to make sure that the troop level was based on what the conditions on the ground dictated and that he would work to establish a structure for some long term stability. I have also heard him state that if the Iraqi government asked for the troops to leave, they would. If the next president really wants to screw things up and simply willy-nilly pull all the troops out starting on day one, I'm sure they will be able to commence that disaster in waiting. And if you can't see what is partisan about that statement, Obama has no hope for changing the culture in DC.

drindl - "you're shocked, shocked people are trying to buy influence by donating $200,000?"

No, I'm shocked by 4 people donating 4.1 million dollars.

Dave!, one likely advantage of having a very small donor group is that they don't waste money on fundraising and don't dither about what to do. This is more like venture capital than it is a non-profit.

And, yeah, that troubles me too. This whole stinking pile of campaign financing needs some attention.

Dave-- you're shocked, shocked people are trying to buy influence by donating $200,000? jeez, how about the Pioneers who donated $300,000? There were a lot more of them than there are Democrats BUYING INFLUENCE.

"Could Soros try any harder to simply buy influence in American politics?"

"Bush Pioneers are people who gathered $100,000 for George W. Bush's 2000 or 2004 presidential campaign. Two new levels, Bush Rangers and Super Rangers, were bestowed upon supporters who gathered $200,000+ or $300,000+, respectively, for the 2004 campaign, after the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law raised hard money contribution limits. This was done through the practice of "bundling" contributions. [1] There were 221 Rangers and 327 Pioneers in the 2004 campaign and 241 Pioneers in the 2000 campaign (550 pledged to try).[1] A fourth level, Bush Mavericks, was used to identify fundraisers under 40 years of age who bundled more than $50,000. [2]

The Pioneer system was devised by Karl Rove. The network has roots in Texan GOP donor lists compiled by Rove, whose political roots are in direct-mail solicitation in the 1980s.[3]
Nineteen of the original Pioneers became ambassadors in 2001. Three Pioneers have been convicted of politics-related crimes."

What is partisan about this? Bush has come right out and said this for some time -- he has always intended to keep as may troops as possible in Iraq for as long as he's president. And he's trying to set up and agreement with the Iraqis to lock in a large American force in Iraq long after he's gone, for 'defense' from opposite inside or outside the country. He wants to tie the next president's hands, making it impossible for him/her to formulate their own policy.

This is news to you?

"It's clear to me, and I think to my Republican colleagues as well, the president just says his only plan to is keep roughly 140,000 troops there until the next president becomes president, and hand off the problem to him or her," Senate Foreign Relations chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., said Wednesday in an interview on CBS' "The Early Show"

Dave!- I stand corrected. It pays to do the math.

novamatt,
While I did take a small shot at the ever-deserving Soros and I fully realize the R's get their money in similar fashion, the topic of the thread was on this particular group so I was directing my comments to them. I will be more than happy to expand when the topic is on general campaign financing or the Republican soft money groups. I was not trying to blame Democrats for raising soft money, I was (am) simply startled that this group seemed to consist of but 4 people.

Dave!, I think the whole point of the 527's is that they are vehicles for the moneybags to influence elections. The Republican soft-money groups use another tax designation (and I'm too lazy to look it up) which doesn't even require them to name their donors. The whole system is rotten, and blaming individuals on one side for systemic failures is missing the point.

bsimon,
When I added up the money of the 4, it totaled up to the quarterly total (4.1). So accounting for rounding, that means that the remainder of contributions were somewhere south of 200K (very worst case), correct (assuming each of the 4 was rounded up by the max)? Assuming that worst case, I guess you could assume that there could be a lot of other contributers. But you could also say that 4 people accounted for over 95% of the donations (at a minumum).

Bing --- 2.5/2.45
Soros -- 1.0/.95
Abraham- 0.3/.25
Fikes -- 0.3/.25
-----------------
Total--- 4.1/3.9

Dave!-
No. It looks like there are more than 4 donors, but that 4 made significant enough contributions to merit being named explicitly.

Am I reading this correctly? The total number of doners in the first quarter that accounted for ALL the 4.1 million was 4! And two of them counted for over 80%! Could Soros try any harder to simply buy influence in American politics? This is the fruition of McCain-Feingold, right?

It just doesnt seem like a whole lot of money given the amounts Clinton and Obama have raised. It all depends on how astute they are in giving away funds, too often its been too little, too late to make a difference or too much of one shot and no followup. However much I dislike the Republican soft money machine, one has to admit they have gotten bang for their buck. Do the Dems or will the Dems go down to their level ie the gutter. Or can they use that money strategically and successfully to support the Dem. presidential and congressional campaigns.

Chris:

Never mind the nit-picking of these other posters. $4.1 million will buy a lot of swift boats.

Obama is going to need soft money help in the general election. Once Obama is the nominee and just prior to the Democratic Convention in August, I can see Obama agreeing to McCain's campaign finance reform for the general election.

Chris,

How can we call $4.1 million in the first quarter of '08 "ramping up?" This, from a group publicly expecting to raise over $100 million. Is the truth not that the prolonged primary race is killing these 527's and c4's? Surely they're disappointed with their own fundraising efforts to date. Soros has his spokesman working overtime to encourage Democratic donors to get off their butts and give to soft money orgs like FFA. It seems like you've bought the company line on this one. I'm a Democrat, and I'm worried that, once again, we're ignoring our soft money operation while the GOP are quietly building the Swiftboat slush fund.

I take back a little about the favorable things I said on Joe Biden yesterday after his comments today. How dare Bush incovenience his successor with the war! Normally Biden is more restrained with his partisan rhetoric. This statement tells me he is shooting for the VP slot. You can not agree or like the Patreaus and Bush approach, but to phrase it in this context is irresponsible. Biden is normally better than this.

"It's clear to me, and I think to my Republican colleagues as well, the president just says his only plan to is keep roughly 140,000 troops there until the next president becomes president, and hand off the problem to him or her," Senate Foreign Relations chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., said Wednesday in an interview on CBS' "The Early Show"

I'm glad to see that the Dems are finally getting some long-term apparatus to place to balance the huge organizational advantage the Republicans have held for so long.

But I'm sure since you mentioned the demonized Soros, CC, the thread will be filled with emptyheaded rightwing dittohead denunications of the man all day.

These folks just don't have any original thoughts. They even need Rush Limbaugh to tell them who to hate.

So the DNC will definitely have some help from their friends. Does the GOP have any chance when it comes o cash?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Spending money on voter registration and mobilization is fine. Even multiple groups registering and mobilizing the same pool of voters -- layered approaches are often what it takes to turn out casual voters.

I'm just hoping that these groups are leaving behind organizers with good lists and networks of volunteers when the election is over. And that as little as possible of this money is going into lame commercials telling me to call Sen. Folderol to tell him to oppose yadda yadda. Those suck.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.