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

I don't think you can do fund raising in a government office. I know some people have gotten in trouble for calling someone from their office in the House or Senate and asking for a campaign contribution.

 

Cleta Mitchell said so? Well, that must be true then.....except for a few things.

I had never heard of this expert, and not really believing a source like Conservative News Service, I looked to see who she was.

Lo and behold, a political hack.

http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/breakfast/bio.cfm?speaker=2156

 

I don't know, looks like they did a fine job of CYA on this one.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ays_obama_fundraising_appeal_not_illegal.html

In response to questions about whether the president and his political team had stayed safely on the legal side of the relevant statutes, White House officials made three arguments. First, they said, an open process for small donors to essentially win a raffle is not the kind of fundraising prohibited under the law -- and the president didn't make a direct appeal for donations, anyway. Second, they pointed to a longstanding advisory opinion from the Justice Department that differentiates between the residence portion of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. -- where the aide said Obama had been filmed -- and official rooms in the White House. Third, they said, Obama's approach is in keeping with the practices of his predecessors.

 

adhaero thema

If you want to discuss another issue start a thread on it.

 

What are you disputing?

 

I am saying the opinion put forth, and it is just opinion, is highly biased.

Because a political lawyer said something does not make it absolute fact. The term "political lawyer" alone should suggest a bit of healthy skepticism required for reviewing their assertions.

 

Well firstly, since you wrote "your opinion", can we now agree that what they wrote were merely opinions, and in no fashion, manner or implication, can be considered as 'facts', as you have twice claimed?

Secondly, as has been pointed out by fiddlerdave, and my subsequent verification, the people quoted in the article have GOP tattoed on their foreheads.

Thirdly, no one as yet can confirm where it was filmed. People are guessing.

Fourthly, even if it was filmed there, there is the question of its status. The article you provided itself carries a remark from the White House that the map room is used for non-official reasons.

Finally, I would like to share the following excerpts from the biblical Fox News (Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ouse-room-for-campaign-pitch/?test=latestnews)


"Second, the White House pointed out that other presidents -- including George W. Bush and Bill Clinton -- have also used White House real estate in campaign pitches, though the images typically are used in run-of-the-mill ads as opposed to fundraising appeals. Third, the White House official claimed the president's latest video doesn't count as a fundraising appeal anyway, because Obama doesn't explicitly ask for money in the video and anybody can submit his or her name for the raffle. "

"Still, there is precedent for basing fundraising appeals out of the White House. Former President Ronald Reagan, according to an Associated Press article from 1997, made fundraising-related calls from the White House during his administration. Former Vice President Al Gore also acknowledged that he made fundraising calls from his White House office during Clinton's reelection campaign, but said it wasn't a violation because there was "no controlling legal authority."


Shall we consider the matter closed now?

 

What of the facts are you disputing and what of the opinion are you disputing and please be specific this time.

 

An opinion based on the facts.

What are you disputing?

Simple dismissals do not refute facts you also forget they are election law attorney's.

So else state what you are disputing or admit you have nothing to dispute.

Thirdly, no one as yet can confirm where it was filmed. People are guessing.

No it is used for official functions. The residency is on the second floor, the first floor is not.


You obviously do not understand the issue, using the WH for non-funding raising activities is legal, what Obama did was not.

It clearly does, their denials are expected.

And I really have no interest in the stretches your are attempting to find some equivalency years ago.

Hardly the FEC and Justice Department should be looking into the matter and taking appropriate action.

 

What facts were presented? None. (*)(*)(*)(*)ing zero. Partisan legal opinions were presented.

 

Where are these facts you keep talking about?
Can you do everyone a favor and write your facts in your next posts in BIG, BOLD, LETTERS?

This is either a lazy evasion or you did not read my post

Where are these facts you keep talking about?

I said there are no facts. It is simply innuendos. Why are you running circles around this? Is it that difficult to comprehend?

You avoided commenting on these, I see.

I completely get it. I wonder if you yourself do, since all you do is make outlandish claims.

Eh?

Why not? Are your self-serving interests impeded by precedents?

Since they are not, are you implying they are corrupt? Or is there NOTHING to this, as I have pointed out, innuendoes?
Or should we just call them corrupt? And if we do, should we call them corrupt in the other cases cited in the article I have shown?

 

Sure. I will. IF I do.

 

Shouldn't the cum lauded learned law professor of Constitutional law be aware of laws concerning the position he holds? Or is he allowed to be a dumb ass 24/7/365?

 

So what do you think about Citizens United?

 

OH GOD HOW CHEESY IS THIS?????, this man is a fool, an unbelievable embarrassment!!!!!

 

The facts of the filming and the facts of the law.

Can't refute them can you.

 

The facts of the filming and the facts of the law, which are you disputing?

What are your specifically disputing?

Those of the filming and the law, which are you disputing?

No we have facts, that it was filmed, where it was filmed and the law. Which are you disputing?

I am waiting for what you are disputing about the matter.

 

What bearing does it have here? If you want to discuss Citizens United then start a thread about it.

 

Sorry, but it would appear that the president covered his rear in that regards.

I provided an article with arguments to that end. If you want to insist that a law was broken, your are certainly entitled to, but it would appear to be nothing more than reflexive partisan outrage.

 

Your cite

"
In response to questions about whether the president and his political team had stayed safely on the legal side of the relevant statutes, White House officials made three arguments. First, they said, an open process for small donors to essentially win a raffle is not the kind of fundraising prohibited under the law-- and the president didn't make a direct appeal for donations, anyway. Second, they pointed to a longstanding advisory opinion from the Justice Department that differentiates between the residence portion of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. -- where the aide said Obama had been filmed -- and official rooms in the White House. Third, they said, Obama's approach is in keeping with the practices of his predecessors.
__________________"

Laughable and the map room is not a part of the residence, it is an official office, an historical one. The last pure conjecture and of no bearing.

It was filmed in an official office of a federal building, that is against the law.

 

Yes, three arguments that seem to counter yours. I guess everything is not as cut and dry, as much of a fact, as you claimed.

 

How? The Map Room is NOT part of the residence, it is an official office.

“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.” (Title 18, subsection 607 U.S.C.)

"I see at Verum Serum, folks are already arguing, “big deal,” the traditional last line of defense. But Obama’s staff already conceded that there are legal restrictions on fundraising in parts of the White House; otherwise, the DNC could throw fundraisers on the White House lawn, etc.

Not being an expert on White House decor, I’ll note it’s conceivable there’s some other explanation; perhaps some other room within the residence looks remarkably similar to the Map Room, with the same style lamps, etc. (Having said that, in the video, it looks like there’s a map behind Obama’s left shoulder.)

But if the video was indeed filmed in the Map Room, where Obama tapes his non-campaign messages, the president violated the law and the White House lied about it yesterday.

UPDATE: Matt Cover looks at the White House visitor logs and finds two “Organizing for America” tapings in the Map Room from November 2010, as well. Organizing for America is the former 2008 Obama presidential campaign apparatus, shifted over to the DNC in January 2009."

And video proof of the filming in the Map Room at

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/270764/where-did-obama-tape-campaign-message-video-again

 

Where did he ask for money in that commercial?

 

Read the OP.

 

I read the OP. I am comparing your citation with the reality of the ad. It would appear that he did not solicit money, as my citation stated.