A Question to Ponder About Oprah and Obama
December 10th, 2007 at 12:43pm Mark Noonan
Given this:
Last week, for the first time, Ms. Winfrey endorsed a political candidate, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat from Illinois. In an interview on “Larry King Live” on CNN, she said she was backing the senator “because I know him personally.”
Ms. Winfrey said that she had not made a financial contribution to Mr. Obama’s campaign, but acknowledged that her public endorsement was probably far more valuable. Campaign finance laws would prohibit her from donating more than $2,300 in the primary and $2,300 in the general election. (emphasis added)
Does Oprah’s public endorsement of Obama constitute an illegal, in-kind donation to Obama’s campaign? What, after all, would be the going rate to get Oprah to endorse a product or service? Such an endorsement could very well be something that would command a fee of millions of dollars. Just how much air time has this endorsement generated on television and radio? In print? What would be the cost to Obama’s campaign to actually pay for that sort of saturation?
You see, lefties, when you get into the game of regulating free speech by regulating who can give to what and how much, you open up a very large can of worms - and I think that a very strong case could be made under that CFR you so loudly called for that Oprah and Obama are commiting a very serious violation of the law…this is getting massive amounts of money into politics and it could, indeed, sway the election. One day, Obama might be sworn in as President because Oprah endorsed him and gave him a huge boost which would have cost him tens of millions of dollars to otherwise produce…and the boost he’s getting simply cannot be replicated by his opponents.
Remember, your theory underlying CFR is that it shuts out the common man from the political debate - unless you want to consider a billionaire like Oprah to be “common”, then you will have to admit that The Rich are very strongly influencing the campaign for the Democratic nomination and that this, under your leftwing definition, is unfair to everyone else in the Democratic party - and illegal under the laws you demanded.
What is your answer to this?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Political Endorsements
46 Comments
1. LiberalMind | December 10th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
You “lefties” regulating campaign contributions?
I think that was the McCain-Feingold Act, right?
McCain is no lefty.
2. Mark Noonan | December 10th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Liberal,
McCain signed on to it, but CFR has been, is, and always will be a leftwing issue.
3. Mark Noonan | December 10th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
And answer the questions…
4. Almiranta | December 10th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
The elephant in Barack’s living room is race. We all see it and no one is willing to talk about it.
Not that he is half-black. That is known and accepted. No, it is that he is a racist, running to some extent a racist campaign.
Oprah was a Clintonista, who now has shifted to Obama. Can anyone believe that race is not a factor? Probably THE factor?
Look how many comments have been made about Obama taking the black vote away from Hillary.
Can you IMAGINE a candidate openly belonging to a church which brags about being “unashamedly white”? Yet Barack’s church says it is is “unashamedly black”.
I could and would vote for a candidate who happend to be black, if I found that candidate to be better qualified. But the Obama campaign is not really about a highly qualified man who is, by the way, black. No, it is about a black man running for the presidency, and I find that offensive.
I see no difference between voting for a man because he is black and refusing to vote for a man because he is black. It is all racism.
And I am sick and tired of the Democrat tactic of “divide and conquer”, their determination to create discord and divisions wherever they can. They play the race card, the poverty card, the gender card, the income card, whatever card they can dig up, to constantly try to turn one group of Americans against another.
I am looking for a candidate who plays only ONE card—the American card.
5. Kahn | December 10th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
You know, I was going to post a knee jerk answer. But this post is interesting.
My first reaction was no, it isn’t the same. But, the idea that everyone is equal and some are more equal is interesting.
6. plainjane | December 10th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
You see, lefties, when you get into the game of regulating free speech by regulating December 10th, 2007 at 12:43pm Mark Noonan
Democrats are realist. Even if McCain Feingold is fully enforced it will not mean a hill of beans. Both Democrats and Republicans will find ways to legally get around it. You want to end all of this nonsense then support public financing of Federal Elections. It is only a dream; neither party will let it happen because it could result in the rise of a legitimate third party.
7. Kahn | December 10th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Yes Jane, the old “everyone does it” argument. A typical answer from a defensive leftist.
But look to see just who has been having the illegal finance issues and who is actually doing the bypassing, and you’ll find it’s the Democrats.
8. jayhay | December 10th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Well, it is the right to freedom of “speech”. Those who oppose CFR believe that freedom includes the right of someone wealthy to buy more advertising time than someone without that wealth - that’s their argument. For me it’s public financing, a level playing field where ideas are the difference - that’s my dream.
And by the way, aren’t you the guys that hyperventilate about Soros and his cash? You hate polls, you love polls; you hate cash in politics, you love cash in politics; life is precious, torture and war are fine; less government is good, government should intrude in all parts of our private lives; freedom of religion is great, as long as you’re religious… WTF?
9. Ricorun | December 10th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I guess I’m not following the argument here. Influential newspapers endorse candidates all the time. Influential clergymen endorse candidates all the time. But television personalities can’t? What about Chuck Norris? Oprah’s not even affiliated with any particular network, is she?
10. eric | December 10th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Rico,
There is a pretty substantial difference between the Chuck Norris situation and the Oprah situation. Chuck appears in a campaign commercial. The campaign must then by advertisement space in order for that commercial to run. Oprah has an open forum via her daily TV show in which she can profess her love for Mr. Obama at no cost to Mr. Obama.
11. Joe | December 10th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I agree Rico. I’m not following it at all either.
Should we outlaw any and all endorsements?
If it was a lesser known actress/actor, would that be ok with you? Is it just those damned Hollywood people that are annoying you?
Can ex-Presidents endorse anyone?
Eric, there are so many talk shows out there. Are they all forbidden from endorsing anyone or do they need to give up their jobs in order to endorse?
How do you feel about Rush blasting the Democratic candidate? Should he be allowed to do that? Ya know… he has that open forum of his daily radio show to call Hillary or Obama the devil.
12. Casper | December 10th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Almiranta,
“No, it is that he is a racist, running to some extent a racist campaign.”
That’s a pretty strong charge. I hope you have a lot more evidence than what you presented. Could you direct me to some speeches or statements he’s made that are racist?
“And I am sick and tired of the Democrat tactic of “divide and conquer”, their determination to create discord and divisions wherever they can. They play the race card, the poverty card, the gender card, the income card, whatever card they can dig up, to constantly try to turn one group of Americans against another.”
I agree. And I don’t like it when the Republicans do it either. You know, trying to divide the country on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. Seems to me both parties are pretty good at it.
13. Rana Quijotesca | December 10th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
ummm…. lets look for a second…
Campaign FINANCE Reform…
There’s that second word… FINANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See there is a difference between saying “I support X” and writing a $2 million check to X.
But no… keep stretching… maybe you’ll grow taller…
14. Kahn | December 10th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Well I see that there are plenty of knees jerking on the left. OK.
15. Ricorun | December 10th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Almiranta: The elephant in Barack’s living room is race.
Elephant? Lol!
16. jayhay | December 10th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Rico - You politely say you’re not following the argument in the post - well, obviously you’re not the only one. And P.S. you say clergymen endorse candidates all the time. Really? The IRS would be interested in hearing about that!
This post of Mark’s was just a big fat one over the middle of the plate. Maybe go back to the “torture isn’t really torture” theme - that one’s on much more solid footing.
17. InDaVa | December 10th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
“Does Oprah’s public endorsement of Obama constitute an illegal, in-kind donation to Obama’s campaign?”
No.
Endorsing a candidate and contributing FINANCIALLY are completely different. End of story. Nice try though…
18. Piaget | December 10th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Good question and I really don’t know. If it does, Huckabee could be in trouble. I’d say Chuck Norris is a hundred times more well known than Ophrah!
19. Magnum Serpentine | December 10th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Yet more reasons to vote for an Independent: Non-Democrat, Non-Demo-publican, Non Republican and non-libertarian.
Anyone who is not connected to the Fundamentalist Reconstructionist is ok.
20. MagicalPat | December 10th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I can live with Soros donating gazillions of dollars, what I would love is for the average American to know who he is and how much is is buying a political party for. A little transparency would be nice.
As I recall, there was an on air team in Washington that spoke out against a ballot initiative and they were being pursued for an in kind contribution. They had taken the conservative side of the issue and had to be stopped. What Oprah is doing is identical, but hey, it’s the left dong it so it’s fine.
21. FmrMarine | December 10th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Almiranta:
You are 100% correct in your analysis.
I also find this oprah / barack /”black church” charade, offensive.
rana;
I do not think a simple endorsement is worth monetary value.
However going on a multi city cross country stump-filling stadiums,based on your name and fame just may fall into the category of monetary value.
22. winnowhead | December 10th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
What an irrelevant point.
Of course Oprah’s endorsement has “value,” and you could even estimate a “monetary” value. But clearly endorsements are an entirely different beast than giving money. And there aren’t any “lefties” who are advocating that people shouldn’t be free to engage in the political process just because they are influential.
I don’t know what you’re smoking but I’d sure like some.
23. neocon | December 10th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
For the first time ever, I am reading posts from liberals sans any mention of race.
I have read so many posts from all of our resident liberals that make references to the “browning of America”, the “young white terrorists”, etc. But for some reason, on this thread, they just don’t see the issue. hmmmmm…………
24. roughridersfan | December 10th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
I don’t see an endorsement as breaking any finance laws.
However, if Oprah goes from city to city spending her own money to endorse Obama, then I think that may be considered a donation (as FmrMarine indicated).
If she or others are spending money to rent a stadium or other facility to endorse Obama, that money should count as a campaign contribution.
If she brings it up on her show, that time should be counted as billable time toward Obama’s campaign at a rate equal to the average of her sponsors.
25. Uncommon | December 10th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
I’ll say it… Obama is Alma, Obama is black…. ohh, ahh, someone on this blog who is not Conservative mentioned race - now get over it. I to would also like to see this proof of Obabma running a racist campaign. This entire post is ridiculous - people are allowed to endorse who the heck they want to. It seems to me however that the fact that Opera is the most powerful and richest woman in this country and happens to be black, bothers a lot of people on this board. I GUARANTEE if Opera was white and was endorsing Fred Thompson, none of you would have a problem with it. Of course, as one poster mentioned, she goes on tour renting stadiums to endorse him then there could be a problem. For now (as far as I know) she had one show that was broadcast in a stadium because her studio was too small and her guest was Obama. And stop getting bent out of shape about the mentioning of his race - this country is largely still extremely racist and it is important to confront it instead of acting like it doesn’t exist.
26. Casper | December 10th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
FmrMarine,
“I also find this oprah / barack /”black church” charade, offensive.”
Exactly what do you find offensive?
27. Tractatus | December 10th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Exactly what do you find offensive?
That it’s not done to benefit Republicans.
28. keef--Not Cruisin--Yet!!! | December 10th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Ya’all leave ol’ Earbama alone; as his wife so eloquently stated, “Barack, as a black man, could get shot pumping gas.”
He’s a member of a black separatist church, but no, he’s not playing the race card. No way…
29. GOP4ME | December 10th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Roughriders…. Ottawa or Saskatchewan?
30. hermie | December 10th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Oprah’s ‘Book Club’ endorsement of “A Million Little Pieces”, enabled James Frey to reap a large chunk of change, despite it being a fraud.
31. Decidenator | December 10th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Funny, I don’t recall the same concerns from you when Schwarzenegger was endorsing Bush.
32. Casper | December 10th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
hermie,
“As more accusations against the book continued to surface, Winfrey invited Frey on the show, to find out directly from him whether he had lied to her and her viewers or had simply embellished minor details as he had convinced Larry King. Frey admitted to several of the allegations against him. He acknowledged that The Smoking Gun had been accurate when the website reported that Frey had only spent a few hours in jail rather than the 87 days Frey claimed in his memoirs. [3]
Winfrey then brought out Frey’s publisher Nan Talese to defend her decision to classify the book as a memoir, and forced Talese to admit that she had done nothing to check the book’s veracity, despite the fact that her representatives had assured Winfrey’s staff that the book was indeed non-fiction and described it as “brutally honest” in a press release.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frey
33. Faceplant | December 10th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Maybe you should answer the question Marky. I mean, we didn’t hear any concern of any kind when Sean Hannity was going around raising money for Rudy Giuliani. Is that an in kind contribution Marky? The answer of course is no. It would be absurd to call an endorsement an in kind contribution, and if you did it would immediately be struck down as an unconstitutional encroachment on freedom of speech.
You can’t apply a dollar value to an endorsement.
34. Faceplant | December 10th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
“Of course Oprah’s endorsement has “value,” and you could even estimate a “monetary” value.”
Really? Alright show us how you would do that.
35. Faceplant | December 10th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I just seems funny to me that Oprah get’s accused of making an in kind contribution, but someone like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who provide hours of endorsements for every conservative cause, and even Presidential candidates somehow are insulated from the same criticism. Christ Hannity practically would give a sermon dedicated to Giuliani for a while there.
36. Mark Noonan | December 11th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Oh, come now, lefties - I’m not asking that Oprah be frog-marched out of the Harpo offices. But it is a serious question which cuts to the heart of the leftwing argument for campaign finance reform - that the rich and powerful exert an undue influence on our political process to the detriment of the wellbeing of the Republic and its citizenry. The counter-argument to that is that its not wealth and power which are the problem, but the full and fair disclosure of just who is involved. In a non-CFR world, no conservative has the slightest problem with Oprah’s endorsement of Obama. Heck, we wouldn’t have a problem if she wrote the man a check for a billion dollars…as long as we know she’s doing it, we can factor that in to the political decision making process and trust that the American people will pass wise judgement on beneficial or baleful effects of Oprah in politics.
Underyling CFR is the concept that the American people cannot make a wise decision - that they must be bamboozled into backing a cause or candidate, and its just unfair if some causes and candidates lack the resources to equally bamboozle. Given this, the concept is to drive money out of politics and, in the leftwing dream, provide public financing for all campaigns so there’s a level playing field for the bamboozlement of the American people (and, btw, public financing is a completely unworkable idea because it is absolutely impossible for anyone to figure out a fair way to determine just who should qualify for such public financing). Personally, as a conservative, I’d just chuck the whole CFR mess into the trash and start afresh - with the only restriction on money being a prohibition against a campaign getting a donation or a loan within 10 days of a vote (this because we need time not just to have who is donating/loaning disclosed, but to get such info out to the American people prior to the vote).
But, we do live in a CFR world - largely at the behest of the political left. In this CFR world, Oprah with her vast wealth and immense fame is giving one candidate what, under CFR, is an unfair advantage. How do you on the left view that?
37. keef--Not Cruisin--Yet!!! | December 11th, 2007 at 6:11 am
But it is a serious question which cuts to the heart of the leftwing argument for campaign finance reform…
That’s the problem, Mark–it’s a serious question, and you know that lefties have problems with serious questions. Russert/Clinton, anyone?
38. Ryan | December 11th, 2007 at 8:26 am
You mean the Rush Limbaugh who has steadfastly refused to endorse a candidate? Not endorsing a candidate is significantly different from endorsing one, last I checked.
39. djp | December 11th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Does Oprah’s public endorsement of Obama constitute an illegal, in-kind donation to Obama’s campaign?
Only to the extent that Fox News or Rush Limbaugh’s coverage constitute in-kind donations to the GOP.
40. Timothy Horrigan | December 11th, 2007 at 10:30 am
All I know is this: if Oprah had endorsed Mitt Romney, you wouldn’t worrying about whether or not this is an illegal in-kind contribution.
In any case, it’s not illegal for any citizen to endorse a candidate, no matter how famous the citizen may be and no matter which party the candidate belongs to.
41. Tractatus | December 11th, 2007 at 11:23 am
But it is a serious question
No, it isn’t; it’s a ridiculous question that you’re only asking because nobody of Oprah’s stature has endorsed a Republican.
42. Ricorun | December 11th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
This is interesting: “According a New York Times/CBS News poll released Monday, only 1 percent of Democrats polled reported that Winfrey’s endorsement would make them more likely to support Obama, while 14 percent said they would be less likely to vote for the candidate because of Winfrey’s support.”
Who would have guessed that? Apparently Oprah’s golden touch isn’t so golden after all.
43. Casper | December 11th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
“According a New York Times/CBS News poll released Monday, only 1 percent of Democrats polled reported that Winfrey’s endorsement would make them more likely to support Obama, while 14 percent said they would be less likely to vote for the candidate because of Winfrey’s support.”
If that’s the case can Obama take it as a negative contribution?
44. Ricorun | December 11th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Casper: If that’s the case can Obama take it as a negative contribution?
It could be a huge write-off, too. According to my math — which is, of course, THE math –considering Romney has already spent something like $7million in Iowa and he’s currently polling around 20%, and considering Obama’s taking a -13% hit according to the NYT/CBS poll, which is about two thirds of 20%, that works out to a write-off of about $4.6million. And that’s only counting Iowa!
Of course, this is all very silly. But then again, isn’t this whole thread?
45. Casper | December 11th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
“Of course, this is all very silly. But then again, isn’t this whole thread?”
Well yes, but we may have something here. Think about it. If candidates could take write-offs for bad endorsements, this could open up a whole new area. Candidates could could be looking for bad endorsements just to get a big write-off.
46. roughridersfan | December 11th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
GOP4ME - Saskatchewan!
Born in Saskatchewan, live in Winnipeg, wish I was in the US.