Texan
Well-known member
What's good for the goose
The FEC should audit Barack Obama's campaign funds, as it is John McCain's. It also needs to review its auditing requirements.
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 11/12/2008 07:26:05 PM MST
President-elect Barack Obama stunned us with his ability to raise staggering amounts of money for his historic campaign. At last count, the campaign collected nearly $640 million.
Obama also made history by being the first presidential candidate to decline public financing in the general election since the program has been available.
Yet Obama's extraordinary campaign war chest likely won't undergo an audit by the Federal Election Commission, according to a report in Politico, while the publicly financed campaign of his rival, John McCain, will be audited.
We hope that such a scenario doesn't play out. Obama's campaign finances need to be scrutinized for several reasons. The simplest is fairness. McCain shouldn't be punished with an automatic audit simply for accepting public financing. (His campaign set aside more than $9 million to pay for the years-long process.)
A clear and transparent accounting of how our presidential campaigns are financed is an important and vital part of the democratic process.
If Obama, by rejecting public financing, escapes such scrutiny, it would set a bad precedent for our country. Finally, there were significant complaints raised during the campaign that Obama's campaign improperly accepted and spent some of its money.
But Obama's campaign would be audited only if the FEC's board of commissioners found sufficient reasons to conduct an audit. The board, according to its rules, is composed of three Democrats and three Republicans, and would likely tie over any vote to scrutinize Obama's millions.
The Obama campaign has received — and likely will continue to receive — FEC requests for more information about some donors or expenses, and that process could trigger an audit, FEC spokeswoman Mary Brandenberger tells us.
"His campaign will be treated like any other campaign," Brandenberger said.
Obama's campaign was criticized for mis-categorizing the purpose of a $832,598 payment to ACORN consultants, Politico's Kenneth P. Vogel reminded readers. And FEC officials identified hundreds of contributor records that lacked sufficient information, and donors who had given more than the $4,600 limit, Vogel reported.
Other reporters have found several instances of foreign donors.
Campaign finance experts say the FEC's requirements for audits are broken and need review. We agree.
The FEC should consider adding a board member, perhaps from a watchdog organization, to break ties in determining cause, and also to make it mandatory that all general-election presidential candidates be audited.
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign should ask for an FEC audit to settle any doubts.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10967563
The FEC should audit Barack Obama's campaign funds, as it is John McCain's. It also needs to review its auditing requirements.
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 11/12/2008 07:26:05 PM MST
President-elect Barack Obama stunned us with his ability to raise staggering amounts of money for his historic campaign. At last count, the campaign collected nearly $640 million.
Obama also made history by being the first presidential candidate to decline public financing in the general election since the program has been available.
Yet Obama's extraordinary campaign war chest likely won't undergo an audit by the Federal Election Commission, according to a report in Politico, while the publicly financed campaign of his rival, John McCain, will be audited.
We hope that such a scenario doesn't play out. Obama's campaign finances need to be scrutinized for several reasons. The simplest is fairness. McCain shouldn't be punished with an automatic audit simply for accepting public financing. (His campaign set aside more than $9 million to pay for the years-long process.)
A clear and transparent accounting of how our presidential campaigns are financed is an important and vital part of the democratic process.
If Obama, by rejecting public financing, escapes such scrutiny, it would set a bad precedent for our country. Finally, there were significant complaints raised during the campaign that Obama's campaign improperly accepted and spent some of its money.
But Obama's campaign would be audited only if the FEC's board of commissioners found sufficient reasons to conduct an audit. The board, according to its rules, is composed of three Democrats and three Republicans, and would likely tie over any vote to scrutinize Obama's millions.
The Obama campaign has received — and likely will continue to receive — FEC requests for more information about some donors or expenses, and that process could trigger an audit, FEC spokeswoman Mary Brandenberger tells us.
"His campaign will be treated like any other campaign," Brandenberger said.
Obama's campaign was criticized for mis-categorizing the purpose of a $832,598 payment to ACORN consultants, Politico's Kenneth P. Vogel reminded readers. And FEC officials identified hundreds of contributor records that lacked sufficient information, and donors who had given more than the $4,600 limit, Vogel reported.
Other reporters have found several instances of foreign donors.
Campaign finance experts say the FEC's requirements for audits are broken and need review. We agree.
The FEC should consider adding a board member, perhaps from a watchdog organization, to break ties in determining cause, and also to make it mandatory that all general-election presidential candidates be audited.
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign should ask for an FEC audit to settle any doubts.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10967563