Compare these two videos, is Obama conducting a fundraising appeal from the White House (taxpayer funded government property). It is patently obvious that it is the same room in both videos.
It doesn’t matter whether it is in the residence part or an official office, it is all part of the peoples house and thus subject the the same rules despite what Holder’s Justice Department says. If the rules are different for the residence part then I want to see Obama’s ass out there cutting the grass and doing the painting just like any other homeowner or else pay for the upkeep out of his own pocket.
The Criminal-In-Chief again flaunting the law for personal gain
Tom in NC
Does Obama’s WH Fund-Raising Video Violate FEC Laws?
posted at 12:15 pm on June 28, 2011 by Howard Portnoy
A video filmed at the White House that was designed to raise funds for the president’s reelection campaign appears to be in violation of Federal Election Committee campaign finance laws.
In the video, President Obama promotes a “Dinner with Barack” raffle. To enter, participants are required to make a minimum donation of $5 to the president’s reelection campaign. The winner, whose name is presumably chosen at random, is flown to Washington to have dinner with the President and Vice President.
Federal Election Campaign Laws are vague in their language regarding the use of federal property to raise campaign funds. Nevertheless this contest smacks of impropriety, as first noted by Jim Geraghty of the National Review.
In response to the allegations, administration spokesmen argue that the video is on the lawful side of the relevant statutes. They offer three arguments in support of their claim:
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 Avenue—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.
As Alexis Simendinger underscores at Real Clear Politics, the last assertion is only partly true—at least for Obama’s immediate predecessor. While it is a fact that George W. Bush filmed political ads in the White House, these were not overt fundraising efforts. (The same cannot be said for President Bill Clinton, who blatantly offered overnights in the Lincoln bedroom in exchane for big-ticket donoations, but abuses by a fellow Democrat hardly help make the current president’s case.)
For the Obama campaign, the video is not the first of its actions to raise eyebrows. In March, the president met with members of the Democratic National Committee in the Blue Room of the White House. Also in attendance were business leaders who were former or current donors or fundraisers. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was quick to assure the media that the meeting was not “a fundraiser,” but for a president who campaigned on changing the way Washington works, Obama has given some seriously mixed signals.
As to the raffle itself, considering the decline in the president’s approval, not to mention his lack of success with previous contests, the “Dinner with Barack” promotion may prove to be a risky proposition. As reported in this column, in February the White House announced a competition among the nation’s 27,000 high schools where the prize was a commencement address by the president. The contest received all of 14 applications.
Maybe the “Dinner with Barack” contest should have a second place prize: two dinners with the President and Vice President.