Report: Obama Films Campaign Ad In White House, Possibly Violating FEC Laws?

"NRO's Jim Geraghty raises the question of whether Barack Obama filmed a video for his reelection campaign in the White House, which may possibly be a violation of federal election laws.................

In the video, President Obama promotes a "Dinner With Barack" raffle. To participate in the contest you need to donate at least $5 to the president's re-election campaign and your name will be raffled off to enjoy a dinner with the President, airfare and accommodations included. In a new web video, Obama announced Vice President Joe Biden will also be attending the dinner."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/27/dinner_with_obama_now_includes_joe_biden.html

So is he going to ignore election law too?

 

LOL, you all blane just one man way too much for all your problems and the problems of the USA. There are way too many others in government and politics to be the cause of your problems. As long as you have no clue that others are the real problem. The problems will continue, and no matter how or who you cast blame on it will not fix your problems. LOL, the very ones who are manipulating you are making you do as they say.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Now does anyone want to discuss the fact that a law may have been violated?

 

Talk about a technicality. It's possible he didn't know and who would?

 

Ignorance is no excuse he has full time legal counsel both as president and his campaign. Yes people know, that the Hatch Act is NOT a "technicality". It is a gross violation of federal election law.

 

Nope, it's a technicality. I won't care until it's something morally and ethically problematic. Seriously who cares where he films something? Is it going to make everyone suddenly vote for him? Oh the evils of filming something in the white house!

 

Nope it's called the Hatch Act, a law.

 

Not all laws are considered equal.

Jaywalking for example cannot be considered as bad as murdering.

 

Which has nothing to do with this issue. The law is the law especially when it comes to the President.............oops I forgot Dems thought Clinton should be allowed to break the law too, felonies in his case.

The Hatch Act is NOT a technicality and sitting government officials have to very careful in separating their government duties and assets from their political activities. Obama seems to careless.

 

Well, Obama may be careless, but his opponents are just plainly negligent.
Newt, Bachmann, Graham and so many others have committed repeated violations of the law - allegedly - both CRIMINAL and/or civil that could result in jail time.

But yeah, let's ignore all of that and zero in on Obama.

Sigh. I'm neutral on Obama, and have always been. But seeing the kind of silly attacks he is subjected to is almost making me consider giving him a sympathy vote. And I know of others who feels the same.

People like you Bluesguy may just be the ones who will get Obama reelected with a landslide win over Romney.

 

You may possibly be right. However, it's important to note that the "White House" also contains the President's private residence, and if the room in question was in the residence, there's no violation. The President has counsel to advise him of such ethical issues, and he's also a lawyer himself, so I suspect the law was being followed in this case. Don't let that stop you from considering this an important news item even though the best you've got is a "may possibly"...

 

Obama Raffle Video Not Legal, Election Law Experts Say

(CNSNews.com) – A video of President Barack Obama filmed in the White House and included in a fundraising e-mail sent to supporters is not legal, two election law experts told CNSNews.com.

The video was included in an e-mail sent to supporters of President Obama promoting a fundraising drive that offered participants a chance to win an invitation to dinner with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

The video was filmed in the White House and, because it is intended to raise funds, constitutes a violation of federal law, according to two election law experts contacted by CNSNews.com.

“I think this is a violation [of the law],” Cleta Mitchell, a member of the American Bar Association’s election law committee, told CNSNews.com.

“It is a specific prohibition on solicitation [of money] by the president, the vice president, or any member of Congress on any federal property,” she said.

According to federal law (Title 18, subsection 607 U.S.C.), “It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties.”

The White House contends that the video is legal, noting that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memo in 1979 explaining that the president can solicit funds in the White House, so long as he does so in the residential portion of the mansion, not in a room used for official business.

However, Hans von Spakovsky – former member of the Federal Election Commission and a Heritage Foundation legal analyst – told CNSNews.com that that exemption may not apply in this case because it appears that the video was not filmed in an area where the president actually lives.

“What they [OLC] said the grey area was, was other rooms that are used not just for official duties but perhaps were also used for entertaining,” he explained. “The Map Room, as I understand it, is only used for official duties – it’s not an entertainment room like other rooms in the White House [that] could be characterized other than the personal residence.”

The controversy revolves around where in the White House the video was filmed. From other White House photographs and videos, including a taping of the weekly presidential address, the room appears to be the Map Room, located in the mansion area of the White House.

However, the Map Room is located on the ground floor of the mansion while the first family resides on the second floor. According to the White House, the Map Room is used for meetings by the president and first lady.

Also, President Obama has used the Map Room to conduct interviews with journalists, meet with the Dalai Lama, and launch his recent initiative aimed at cutting wasteful spending in government. Most notably, Obama used the Map Room to take the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts in 2009.

If the video was filmed in the Map Room, as it appears to be, then there is no question it violates the law, von Spakovsky explained, because it is clearly part of a fundraising pitch, precisely the type of activity prohibited under the law.

“The video is clearly designed to get people to participate in this raffle and the video takes you directly to a web site – directs you to a web site – where there’s an immediate solicitation for funds,” he said.

Von Spakovsky further said that, at best, Obama was “bending, if not breaking the law” in making the video in the White House.

Cleta Mitchell was more blunt, saying, “it’s a criminal offense.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-raffle-video-not-legal-election-la

Repeat, a CRIMINAL offense.

The FEC and the Justice Department should be looking into this.

 

What do they have to do with Obama violating election law?

 

This was not filmed in the living quarters in was filmed in the Map Room which is used for official meetings.

 

Nothing like finding a "neutral reference" to talk to!

While Cleta Mitchell has some bona fides, we can assume that her opinion would be negative under most circumstances. Too bad WND didn;t bother to tell us they were referring to a rabid neo-Conservative.

The same is true of their other legal reference Spakovsky, but at least WND points out his association with The Heritage Foundation, to whom Obama is the AntiChrist.

From Mitchell's legal firm:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary...hes-goproud-while-her-firm-embraces-diversity

 

“I think this is a violation [of the law],”

"because it appears that the video was not filmed in an area where the president actually lives."

"The Map Room, as I understand it, is only used for official duties"

"The room appears to be the Map Room"

"According to the White House, the Map Room is used for meetings by the president and first lady"

lol.
As far as innuendos go, this could not have been done better.
Their claims goes juuuuuust about far enough to make an accusation, but with enough room for wiggle.
Brava! Brava!



Oh, and fiddlerdave, good spot.

As I've said before, dramedies like this can only make independents like us sympathize with him more

 

Are you deny the facts presented? Let's see the evidence that does so.

Was the fund raising video filmed in the White House Map Room or not?

 

And your evidence to refute the facts as posted is.................?

 

Evidence mate? lol. Come on.
Those are opinions, and they didn't even go as far making a direct accusation beyond veiled allegations.

Heck, this is even flimsier than the allegations of misappropriations on Bachmann, and I would be surprised if anything comes out of it.

 

Your evasion tells me that you have no answer. I rest my case.

 

Obama thinks the White House is his personal wealth.

 

Yes the evidence it was NOT filmed in the Map Room and those are legal opinions from lawyers who practice election law so why is your opinion more valid?

 

Again what does it have to do with the issue at hand, you'll have to elaborate else the only conclusion is you had no case to begin with. I am well versed on Citizens United if you want to start a thread to discuss it feel free but quite frankly since it is settle law there's not much to discuss about it.

 

res ipsa loquitur

The fact that you can't give me an up or down vote on Citizens United but you're "outraged" about this alleged Obama video tells us everything we need to know about your campaign law moral compass.

 

What law was violated? The guy filmed a commercial in his office? I am not aware of that being against the law. Should he have stepped off the property or something?