Obama administration considering corporate funding for inauguration festivities

Hypocrisy? After four years of going to war against corporate “donations” to campaigns – which are not corporate donations – and loudly complaining about the Citizens United v. FCC outcome, the Obama administration if floating the what-if-we-allow-corporations-to-fund-our-inauguration-bash trial balloon.

Now that the election is over and President Obama does not have to worry about another one, it seems possible that – yet again – another promise might be broken. From the Weekly Standard.

President Barack Obama is reportedly considering the use of the corporate cash to help pay for inauguration. The thinking is, after a long and very expensive presidential campaign, donors might be too spent to pick up the tab.

Tapped out I guess. I can not figure out why contributing corporate cash prior to an election is taboo, but the day after the election the money should be allowed to flow. In all reality, the Democrats (and Republicans) are always in re-election mode.

More from the Wall Street Journal via Fox News.

Four years ago Mr. Obama barred corporations from donating to his inauguration, a gesture meant to show that well-heeled interests wouldn’t have undue influence in his administration.

The chutzpah of this crowd is thick, really thick.

When corporations fund high-dollar, high-profile events with marketing dollars they expect a return on their investment. Be it the Super Bowl, a football stadium, or a “limited interruption” TV movie premier, marketing executives spend money where they think it will improve their bottom line so they can keep people employed and make a profit.

Some might say corporate funding for the parties is just an extension of big event/big venue marketing as the businesses are targeting the people who are attending the events. Pepsi just wants attendees to switch from Coke. But as I mentioned before, campaigning for office – at all levels – starts the day after the most recent election.

Unfortunately for Democrats, they can not ignore the flip-flop here. President Obama took the “high road” forbidding corporate donations and campaigned on that soap box for years … right to the point where he does not have to worry about getting re-elected again.

No convictions. No firmly held beliefs or opinions. He’s flexible.

From Erika Johnsen at Hot Air.

We all know that that “transparency” and “ending business as usual” thing was a total sham anyways, so why not just put a stop to the charade and be honest about what’s going on here? In an ever-metastisizing big, progressive, regulatory government in which rent-seeking keeps taking the place of free-market signals, corporations and businesses are going to be looking for ways to ingratiate themselves with the Obama administration — so I think the White House should indeed feel free to quit with the pretensions any time now.

7 replies
  1. stinkfoot
    stinkfoot says:

    The hypocrisy is only shocking if one does not see the demagoguery for what it is- disingenuous and calculated class warfare with the sole purpose of dividing the population against a free market system on the premise that it will fare better with a “benevolent” bureaucratic colossus that claims to know better than that population what’s best for it.?
    It furnishes further proof that the administration does not believe its own rhetoric- which is spoon fed to voters and taxpayers- objects of a contempt which belies the presumed concern on which the administration’s socialist agenda is supposedly based.? It does not speak well of the folks who voted the Treasodent back in notwithstanding the “dereliction of duty” news media which has commandeered the narrative and supported the criminals who have taken over the US government.

  2. kateinmaine
    kateinmaine says:

    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!? oh, this is RICH!?
    the dems are endlessly fond of punishing businesses that are ‘too big to fail’.? i suggest, in the alternative, that republicans start targeting those ‘too stupid to live or succeed’.? it’s ‘fair’, it ‘levels the playing field’ and it ‘adds up’.
    my, how different things would be if o were able to turn half of the effort/energy used in figuring out ways to bleed corporate ??????? to finding ways to benefit corporate ???????–he might actually have an accomplishment or two to celebrate–instead of a dirty, hollow and possibly fraudulent victory achieved through ‘hoodwinking and bamboozling’ those too feeble to fend for themselves…
    ?

  3. JBS
    JBS says:

    Wow! Nice turn of a proper noun . ??????? has a certain cachet to it.?
    Everything that the Left, Democrats and the Regime accuse the Right of, they now turn for their benefit and monetary gain.
    Rich, indeed.
    ?

  4. SeeingRed
    SeeingRed says:

    Let’s see who has a problem with the trial balloon.? Does anyone think the MSM will have issue with?it beyond cursory (if that) coverage?? Think again.? Besides, a ‘large chunk’ (a technical term per Fauxcahontas) of O voters could care LESS what/how he governs.? As long as the 1st of the month fills the mailbox all is well in ??????? (thanks Kate).

Comments are closed.