Team obama makes another mistake.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/25/Obama-s-Organizing-For-Action-Files-Complaints-Against-Website-Owners

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2013/02/25/OFA-NRA.png








by WARNER TODD HUSTON (http://www.breitbart.com/Columnists/Warner-Todd-Huston) 25 Feb 2013 497 (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/25/Obama-s-Organizing-For-Action-Files-Complaints-Against-Website-Owners#disqus_thread)
At the beginning of the year, President Barack Obama's new 501(c)4 political nonprofit, Organizing For Action, was launched with all the usual bells and whistles. But the tech wizards at OFA forgot one important rule in today's Internet world: Register all the iterations of your website address before someone else does.

Now Obama's team is filing complaints against the folks smart enough to get the addresses before he did.
As Obama's OFA made its debut, no one in his purportedly Internet-savvy campaign had obtained the corresponding .com, .net, .org or .us sites, nor did OFA register other names that are close to its official one, as is the sensible practice. In the case of the .net address, a fellow named Derek Bovard had already registered the .net address by the time Obama's team took notice.
Bovard has routed his new site to the homepage of the National Rifle Association.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Team Obama, just about as bright as is their leader..:laugh2:--Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

:clap::clap::clap:

[Kathianne]

Speaking of 'Organizing for America":

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/25/video-ofa-selling-wh-access-to-donors/


Video: OFA selling WH access to donors? posted at 12:01 pm on February 25, 2013 by Ed Morrissey“This just looks bad,” says MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, and that’s an understatement. Todd worries that the White House is “ceding the moral high ground” by having Barack Obama’s presidential-campaign-turned-activist-network pledge to provide access to the President in exchange for big bucks, as the New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obamas-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.html?_r=0) over the weekend:


Finally, The New York Times reported over the weekend that donors who contribute and raise $500,000 for President Obama’s Organizing for Action will get special access to the President. That’s right. They’re selling access to the President. The new group has an ambitious goal — to raise $50 million to convert the President’s re-election campaign into an advocacy network and they’re offering access. The New York Times says ‘giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the President along with other meetings at the White House.’


Excuse us? This just looks bad. It looks like the White House is selling access. The definition of how you define selling access. If you believe money has a stranglehold over the entire political system, this is ceding the moral high ground. And the President always has, from the moment he first announced his presidential bid in Springfield, six years ago, he stressed the need to curb the influence of special interests in Washington.
The NYT’s Nicholas Confessore reports on the latest version of renting out the Lincoln Bedroom:


But the rebooted campaign, known as Organizing for Action (http://www.barackobama.com/?source=action-bar), has plunged the president and his aides into a campaign finance limbo with few clear rules, ample potential for influence-peddling, and no real precedent in national politics.

...

[fj1200]

Why does a POTUS need an advocacy network? Doesn't he already have a job and a bully pulpit for that matter?

[aboutime]

Why does a POTUS need an advocacy network? Doesn't he already have a job and a bully pulpit for that matter?


fj. In answer to your question. Because Known, Practiced Liars always need to be reassured that their message; though false. Always gets out to fellow liars who will happily tend to the proliferation of said lies as a form of Comfort, and Aid to the Enemy within.

[Kathianne]

More:

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html


The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obamas-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.html?pagewanted=all) reported Saturday that Barack Obama has converted his campaign--originally known as Obama for America, then (in its incarnation as the 2012 campaign) as Organizing for America--into "a tax-exempt 'social welfare group,' " now styled Organizing for Action. The new OFA is a corporation whose operations (though not its contributions) are exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Here's the Times's most eyebrow-raising revelation:

Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama's group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama's top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships. Half a mil for this lame duck works out to a bit less than $3,000 a pound. When asked at yesterday's White House daily briefing if the report was true, White House press secretary Jay Carney "was vague," the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/25/carney-doesnt-directly-deny-access-charge/) reports. Thus it's reasonable to surmise that OFA will indeed be selling access to the president for $500,000.


<!-- lib_json_commons.ftl --> http://m.wsj.net/video/20130226/022613opinionbotw/022613opinionbotw_512x288.jpg

(http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html#)

Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on Organizing for America's charging $500,000 for the opportunity to meet President Obama. Photos: Getty Images




Our immediate reaction is that if this isn't illegal, it ought to be. But on further consideration, it seems to us it's no different in principle from a candidate's inducing people to donate money by appearing at a fund-raising dinner, with perhaps a private photo-op for the top donors.


The difference is that because Obama is a lame duck, the amount of money involved is a lot bigger. (To adapt an old punch line: We've already established what you are, Mr. President. Now we're just haggling over the price.) Federal law prohibits any donor from giving more than $5,200 to a candidate in a given election cycle. The limit for contributions to political parties is an order of magnitude higher, at $32,400. But there's no limit on contributions to a 501(c)(4) corporation. OFA could charge $5 million for access to the president if the market would bear it.


One may think of the limits on campaign contributions as price controls on access to politicians. But they apply only to candidates for federal office. A 501(c)(4) couldn't have sold access to the president before his re-election, because that would have constituted "coordination" with the campaign, which is illegal. '


Republican election lawyer Robert Kelner tells the Times that Obama has found "a rather simple loophole in the otherwise incredibly complex web of government ethics regulations that are intended to insulate government officials from outside influence." It's a loophole that applies only to lame-duck officeholders, and probably only to lame-duck presidents, since members of Congress are subject to a host of internal ethics restrictions.


http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-WM430_botwt0_C_20130226140854.jpg <cite>C-Span/BuzzFeed.com</cite> Obama in 2008





BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/when-obama-condemned-selling-access) unearths a clip of then-Sen. Obama in 2008 railing against " 'the cynics, and the lobbyists, and the special interests' who 'write the checks' and 'get the access while you' "--the poor suckers in the audience--" 'get to write a letter.' " Quoth candidate Obama: "They think they own this government, but we're here today to take it back." They've taken it back, all right, and they're milking it for all it's worth


Common Cause (http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=12987293)--which describes itself as "nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to restoring the core values of American democracy, reinventing an open, honest, and accountable government that works for the public interest, and empowering ordinary people to make their voices heard" and is in fact a 501(c)(4) corporation itself--put out a statement today demanding that Obama close OFA down. Good luck with that.

...

[Robert A Whit]

More:

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html

Good catch.

Well Mr. Arrogant certainly has gall, and some to sell it seems.