Obama aides hosting costly fundraisers

SENIOR AIDES to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama likely to hold positions in his administration, if he is elected…

SENIOR AIDES to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama likely to hold positions in his administration, if he is elected, are hosting fundraising events that cost guests up to $30,000 (€23,000) each to attend.

So far, the Illinois senator has raised $600 million to fight his election campaign, and he issued a new appeal to small donors yesterday for $5 a head to mount an intensified pitch to voters in the final days.

On Wednesday night, millions of Americans watched a 30-minute so-called "infomercial" presented by Mr Obama that aired on three major networks and a number of smaller ones, including ones targeted at African-American and Hispanic voters.

In Boston, guests paid $28,500 each - the maximum that can be given to a party as distinct from a candidate under US law - to listen in on a conversation between Mr Obama and former US treasury secretary Robert Rubin, and to make interventions themselves.

READ MORE

In the same city, former Democratic South Dakota senator Tom Daschle, tipped as a possible chief of staff for Mr Obama, hosted a lunch that cost between $500 and $2,500 to attend.

Mr Obama's senior healthcare adviser, David Cutler, spoke to guests at a lunch in Newark, New Jersey, that cost either $500 or $2,300 a head, while guests paid $250 or $1,000 to listen to domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden in Washington.

One of the world's richest men, Warren Buffett, who has offered economic advice to Mr Obama during the current global economic crisis, hosted a lunch to gather funds for the Democratic candidate in Los Angeles at a cost of $28,500 a head.

In New York, Dennis Ross, former US president Bill Clinton's Middle East negotiator, attended an event that cost between $1,000 and $10,000 a head.

Others paid between $2,500 and $5,000 to hear Tony Lake, former national security adviser to Mr Clinton.

Republican candidate John McCain has again criticised the amount of money raised by Mr Obama, questioning the legitimacy of some of the donations made under the $200 disclosure limits laid down in federal law.

"He didn't tell the American people the truth," Mr McCain said.

"Twice he looked into the camera when he was in debate with Senator [Hillary] Clinton and said, 'I'll sit down and negotiate with John McCain before I decide on public financing [of elections]'."

Mr Obama, who spent up to $4 million on his Wednesday night broadcasts, decided not to take public financing when it became clear he would able to raise far in excess of the $84 million that would have been available to him in this way.

Mr McCain, who co-wrote tougher political donations laws in 2002, agreed to the limits, though it is unlikely he would have done so if he had been able to match his opponent's fundraising abilities.

On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported - and the Obama campaign did not deny - that some donors have made payments on the candidate's website using pre-paid credit cards that cannot subsequently be traced.

"So we don't know who those donors are. Their response will be, 'Oh, well, they're just small donors.' We don't know that. We don't know that, because they're undocumented," Mr McCain told CNN's Larry King.

The size of Mr Obama's war-chest has, so far, not hurt his campaign, and most of those polled by Gallup did not know the Democrat had refused state financing, which would have imposed limits upon him, while Mr McCain had accepted it.

However, 70 per cent of Americans believe too much money has been spent in what will be the US's first billion-dollar presidential battle, including 84 per cent of McCain supporters, but also 58 per cent of Mr Obama's.

The Gallup poll finds that just one-third of voters want candidates to be bound to accept state finance, while four in 10 believe the existing rules are satisfactory.

Interestingly, Republicans, who have generally objected to spending limits in the past, are now strongly in favour of them, by a two-to-one majority, while a majority of Democrats, who favoured them in the past, now oppose them.