Barack Obama's Mysterious "Paid" Campaign Dinners
Published in Le Figaro
(France) on 29 September 2011
by Véronique Saint-Geours (link to original)
In 2012, people were already talking about a $1 billion campaign for Obama. But he hasn't forgotten that in 2008, it was the small donors that crowned his campaign with unparalleled momentum and popularity. According to The New York Times, the 4 million small donors to the 2008 campaign are not showing up. Is this due to a lack of enthusiasm or money among the old fans? This observation is bad for the president's image, hence his desire to reconnect with these donors, to annoy the Republicans who could do the same thing with the tea party, and, perhaps, to bring back the paid campaign dinner.
In June, Obama's campaign team set up a lottery with a minimum $5 ticket fee and four winners chosen at random to be invited to dinner with the candidate and Vice President Joe Biden, with everything paid for. Bingo. But, since July 10, the date on which they were supposed to announce the winners, nothing has happened. What's going on? No names, no date, no location. Badgered by journalists, Katie Hogan, press secretary for Obama's campaign, had to promise that the dinner would take place the day before the 2012 election, without giving any more specifics. Mysterious, mysterious.
In response, the team did it again at the beginning of September, with the launch of a second sweepstakes for a dinner with Barack Obama on Twitter — with 10 million fans — and in an email from Michelle, which, in very simple terms, explains that this dinner is very informal and straightforward, but that people will be allowed to pose interesting questions to Barack only. Exit Joe. And this time, the minimum ticket price is $3. On sale? Has the crisis gone that far, and certain fans lack the necessary funds? Unless the first dinner didn't meet the anticipated success, and the goal was to exceed the amount collected during the 2008 campaign in order to mock the Republicans.
In fact, this contest, which was very simple in the beginning, raises many problems. The dinner's location — Chicago, the campaign's capital — the date, the tax status of the donations, the necessary security, given the dangers inherent in the guests being chosen at random. Anyone could be invited, an old Guantanamo prisoner disguised as a citizen, for example. And then there is the necessary confidentiality to protect the winners. In the first contest, they specified that attending the event was part of a contract between the event's organizers and the winners. That's all over. The lawyers have been there. And there is a vague sense that, if these dinners do take place on schedule, it would be a small miracle. It would be too sad to learn that this was just a clever publicity campaign.
In June, Obama's campaign team set up a lottery with a minimum $5 ticket fee and four winners chosen at random to be invited to dinner with the candidate and Vice President Joe Biden, with everything paid for. Bingo. But, since July 10, the date on which they were supposed to announce the winners, nothing has happened. What's going on? No names, no date, no location. Badgered by journalists, Katie Hogan, press secretary for Obama's campaign, had to promise that the dinner would take place the day before the 2012 election, without giving any more specifics. Mysterious, mysterious.
In response, the team did it again at the beginning of September, with the launch of a second sweepstakes for a dinner with Barack Obama on Twitter — with 10 million fans — and in an email from Michelle, which, in very simple terms, explains that this dinner is very informal and straightforward, but that people will be allowed to pose interesting questions to Barack only. Exit Joe. And this time, the minimum ticket price is $3. On sale? Has the crisis gone that far, and certain fans lack the necessary funds? Unless the first dinner didn't meet the anticipated success, and the goal was to exceed the amount collected during the 2008 campaign in order to mock the Republicans.
In fact, this contest, which was very simple in the beginning, raises many problems. The dinner's location — Chicago, the campaign's capital — the date, the tax status of the donations, the necessary security, given the dangers inherent in the guests being chosen at random. Anyone could be invited, an old Guantanamo prisoner disguised as a citizen, for example. And then there is the necessary confidentiality to protect the winners. In the first contest, they specified that attending the event was part of a contract between the event's organizers and the winners. That's all over. The lawyers have been there. And there is a vague sense that, if these dinners do take place on schedule, it would be a small miracle. It would be too sad to learn that this was just a clever publicity campaign.