Maybe there should be a windfall profits tax on campaign contributions. It wouldn't be punishing Obama's success, just spreading the wealth around. :-)

It would make sense but if Obama's donors chose to donate the money to him rather than a charity is it his right to second guess their choice?

As one who contributed to Obama in September, one of the factors motivating me was the possibility that if he is elected, maybe the mission of some of these charities that I normally donate to (e.g., AI, NRDC, Doctors Without Borders, HRW) will not be as desperately needed.

However, if after the election, if Obama is elected and if it is legal, I wouldn't object if he chose to donate it to charities. Andrew's point is well taken, however.

I don't think it would be a good idea for the Obama campaign to give to charity, because of the possible effects of the counter-attack by the political right. Presumably they would try to dig up dirt on the recipients, and would simply make stuff up if they couldn't find any real dirt. The charities in question might end up losing money if people on the political right stopped contributing to them.

Yes, I'm suggesting that Obama should avoid a fight he would have the advantage. (It's not easy to attack charitable giving.) I think that Obama will win anyway, and I want to avoid the collateral damage that would come from turning charitable giving into a political issue.

Airtime available for political ads between now and the election is finite, and there are only so many other things a campaign can legally spend money on, so Dan's question is no moot point. Sen. Obama would be under considerable pressure to use some of his surplus to subsidize Democratic candidates for other office, and for party-building activities generally. I would think some kind of philanthropic use of the money might be possible, and a good public relations gesture, but though Sen. Obama has mastered campaign mechanics there are many situations he will face after the election that he never has before. This is one of them, so there is no way to tell how he will act.

Also: since everyone else seems to be acceptig at face value the Obama campaign's interpretation of its fundraising bonanza as the result of an historically unprecedented outpouring of passionate support from small donors, can I point out that by the end of this campaign Obama will have raised, and spent, almost as much as Bush and Kerry combined did four years ago. I don't question that Obama has asked for and attracted donations from many people who hadn't be tapped for this purpose by earlier candidates, but there is something about the size of this increased fundraising that looks too good to be true.

The best way for Obama to help those in need is by winning the election and governing in the public interest.

The question is a valid one even if counting campaign contributions as part of Barack Obama's "wealth" is dubious at best. Does anyone know how much of Obama's $4.2 million 2007 income would have been spread under his proposed tax plan?

Ok, so no one else other than me thinks that this question was probably asked tounge in cheek ?

If Obama raised 150 million, is it fair that he uses every penny of it to further his personal ambition, while at the same time he openly demands/mandates that some one who earns more than 250K to "spread the wealth" around ?

Let me guess- Obama "earned" the 150 million dollars by his great campaigning, whereas the people who earn more than 200 grand a year are mostly "fortunate" to get to where they are ?

The irony that i see in a Democrat candidate rubbishing the public financing system and raising prodigious amounts of money with the media breathlessly reporting it while they would have gone hammer and tongs if the Republican candidate did the same is pretty rich.

As some one who has come around to the conclusion that Presidential "public financing" is baloney and does not do much to limit the influence of Washington insiders ( the legislators in Congress are more critical and easier to influence/buy off - FNMA and Freddie Mac are (sub)prime examples), i am happy that Obama has for all practical purposes destroyed it.

This is a great idea, even from a calculating political perspective, but it might well not be legal. In most places, you can't do anything that could be construed as buying someone's vote, and a campaign giving out any kind of material aid to voters could well be construed that way. Obama's campaign has a good record of recruiting volunteers and donors to help their communities (e.g., the Iowa floods), and that might be as much as they can do.

Unless you think they should pass out bread and sponsor a circus.

The questions of legality are important. But also, I fear that Obama may need the money to deal with potential wrangling over voting issues in any states that get close. He will not give in easily as Gore did in 2000. And he should not.

@NS,

The reason that nobody thought to ask this question was that the comparison is pretty much useless. The money that Obama is raising isn't his any more than it would be any other candidate's money. It's for his campaign, not for his personal use. He'll be using it to buy ads, not to buy luxury items.

Perhaps the media would have gone after the Republican candidate that had raised as much money as Obama, but that's just it: nobody has raised as much money as him. Most of it was from small donations over the Internet, as opposed to the traditional fund raising that, for better or worse, is aligned with the image of corruption, thereby making the chances of negative influences less probable than with the usual attempts to raise money. If this happened to McCain, he'd be pushing the same correct line that Obama's people are pushing, and for once, he'd be right.

As far as the "spread the wealth" line goes, you still seem to cling to the false notion that he was talking about redistribution. From what else we've seen of those comments, it looks like he was talking about who was paying what, or rather the burden of the tax system.

Zathras:
I hope you realize what he is doing with that money. Why do you think Obama is up in formerly "red" states? It's because Obama has taken the fight to McCain. He doesn't believe in this red/blue state nonsense. He, unlike Bush, will be President for all of America. Did you know that McCain only discernible presence in a Kerry state at this point is PA?

NS:
Sounds like you missed Andrea Greenspan(sorry .. Mitchell) on the TV this morning whining that Obama raised the $150 million. You forget something. The TradMed is not Democratic. The only two liberal voices on TV(besides Comedy Central .. and I don't mean Letterman) are KO and Maddow. I'd like to know who the other liberals on TV are. Brokaw? He's a McCain apologist. "Tweety" Matthews? He's admitted on air to voting for Dubya twice. When is the last time a non-politician liberal was on MTP? Markos last year, probably.

Wow,
I got two people coming at me ! take it easy folks.

@Brian,
I don't think you understand the fact that liberals have always been for public financing for two important reasons - one, it supposedly limits the influence people have on the President or other politicians running for Congress. (It's almost like these people never lived in Washington DC !)

two, liberals have always wanted LIMITS on the amount of money a candidate can spend EVEN if it is from public financing. In fact, i would go so far as to say that this was a more important goal for them. No more than a certain amount of money should be allowed - if there were no limits to campaign finance, there is no such thing as campaign finance regulation.

Obama now claims that his donations average under 100$ - and that there are about 3 million donors to his campaign. A claim that will be painstaking/ time consuming to verify for the FEC. I dont doubt that he has a lot of donors, but please 3 million ? By the time, the FEC comes around to it the election would have been over and Obama would already be President.

And we are not even talking about his bundlers, 25,000$ a plate Hollywood parties etc.

I have NO PROBLEM with Obama raising as much money as he can. He should be allowed to - heck any Presidential candidate should be allowed. But what i am trying to point out is the stunningly obvious hypocrisy - he asks successful people to "spread" the wealth around for the "good" of the country but when it comes to his own charitable donations, he suddenly plays pauper. His running mate Biden is ... WORSE.

"you still seem to cling to the false notion that he was talking about redistribution. From what else we’ve seen of those comments, it looks like he was talking about who was paying what, or rather the burden of the tax system."
Uhh.. "clinging" to false notion ?? I have to love it when Obama supporters BEND OVER backwards to justify whatever nonsense he spouts off.

Brian, please. What exactly do you mean by "who is paying what" ? 35% of the people in this country dont pay a dime in taxes. Nada.Zilch...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

The richest 25% pays about 85% of total taxes... what MORE do you want to fleece from these people? How much more "burden" do you want these people to take ? When you take money from higher income groups and then give this money back to lower income folks, WHAT exactly do you call it ?? Re-distribution. Nothing more - nothing less.

Also, you dont seem to understand another simple fact - the more burden you put on businesses, the more they will pass it back on the consumer. Not to mention, more tax shelters and lesser domestic investment.

Obama's version of "fairness" will have real and high costs.

@ Joe Klein's conscience
You make arguments like Joe Klein would !! Andrea Mitchell is a fricking TOOL - heck NBC/MSNBC are the biggest in the tank media members for Obama - and i have been watching this unabashed bias for the last 10 months now. Please... no time for cruel jokes..

EVERY major media figure with the exception of Mr.BOREilly is a liberal - Brokaw is a liberal but he does not let it show as blatantly as Olbermann does. So is Bob Schieffer - so is Jim Lehrer. The MSM has always been left liberal - no wonder Fox News was a ratings hit when it came on the national scene - they gave a conservative perspective of issues that no one EVER heard from NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN for that matter.

You mentioning Tweety was an even bigger JOKE - for God's sakes he is a well known Democrat who worked for Carter and Tip O Neill.. this is the same guy who still hasnt stopped feeling the tingle running through his legs when Obama speaks !!!

Thanks for the entertainment Mr Joe Klein conscience - unintentional as you may have been.

Maybe Palin should spread around some of her wardrobe budget to the less fortunate.

Or Obama could have spared 140,000$ from his DNC convention acceptance speech on that faux-Greek stage.

Obama's first, second, and third priority is to get elected. If that means pandering to large numbers of unemployed, under employed, those on welfare, illegal aliens, and malcontents, he'll be happy to throw them a few crumbs as a way to get their votes. He will also turn democracy and capitalism on it's head, and villainize the affluent and successful in our society, in order to rally the masses behind him. With evangelical zeal Obama will convince his followers to replace reason with hope and belief ... to blindly follow him ... never challenge him ... and embrace his words as gospel. In the real, and unforgiving world of economics however, when you immediately gratify everyone by feasting on the goose that lays the golden eggs, the economy looses it's ability to continue generating growth and wealth. Obama is promising everyone a piece of the pie, whether they helped bake it, or not ... but, only in a socialistic, or communist state do the non-contributors demand to share equally in the property that belongs to others. Immediate gratification is like a drug to the malcontents, but in the big picture, every farmer knows that you never eat your seed crop. If Obama gets elected, America will turn into a third world country, with massive government welfare programs, unable to generate jobs for it's citizens, and unable to compete in the global markets. Keep America safe, free and strong ... elect McCain/Palin on November 4th.

He never does what he says, and this is an example. Didn't biden (fraud #2) keep saying "Its what we call fair". Well is it fair or American to spend that much money promoting yourself instead of giving some to charity and spreading it? On top of it, he spends even more to push the World Series back 30 minutes, Americas past time. I have news for you, this guy is only out for his best interests, not for the nation. He is a fraud, a bs artist, and the public is buying it.

I already have my "impeach obama" sticker ready, in case he gets in.