[subego]

Dinner with Barack - Barack Obama

Seriously?

Originally Posted by Dinner with Barack

approximate retail value of all prizes $4,800

Seriously?

[olePigeon]

I don't get it. What's your complaint?

[andi*pandi]

Any contest has to have a "value" for tax purposes, right?

[boy8cookie]

Round trip for 6 people + dinner at a fancy place. Less than $5000. Problem?

[subego]

It's tacky.

[hyteckit]

Is it tacky because the retail value is too low or because it's with Pres. Obama?

I rather have dinner date with Scarlett Johansson. More pleasant to look at during dinner.

Didn't some Chinese businessman paid close to $1 million for a dinner date with Warren Buffet?

[subego]

I don't think you should get the President in a sweepstakes. It's a maneuver made by someone who doesn't respect the office.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't think you should get the President in a sweepstakes. It's a maneuver made by someone who doesn't respect the office.

But it's only okay if you are a big donor and can afford $50k a plate?

$50k for a dinner plate ==> Respect for the office of the Presidency
Free dinner with the president ==> No respect for the office of the Presidency

[subego]

That's not a bad point, but one definitely comes off as less scummy than the other to me.

I'll try to put into words why.

[besson3c]

I think we should get Turtle or Big Mac into one of those dinner dates.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's not a bad point, but one definitely comes off as less scummy than the other to me.

I'll try to put into words why.

Let me try.

Dinner date with a high-end escort ==> $2000/hr
Dinner date with a cheap hooker ==> $200/hr
Dinner date with your wife/gf ==> Free


You are thinking cheap hooker.
I'm thinking wife/gf.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's not a bad point, but one definitely comes off as less scummy than the other to me.

I'll try to put into words why.

Because one comes with the expectation that the President might lend you an ear at some point if you have a need?

[subego]

I'm getting a "two wrongs make a right" vibe here.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm getting a "two wrongs make a right" vibe here.

I'm curious what you think is wrong with giving a couple of regular people the chance to have dinner with the President?

[subego]

I'm thinking this through, and as usual I'm just getting ahead of myself, so, first things first.

Are we in general agreement about why this contest exists?

It seems obvious to me it's to gather contact information for fundraising purposes, not just for Obama but for the DNC.

Yes, no?

[subego]

Is this a stumper question or something?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think we should get Turtle or Big Mac into one of those dinner dates.

That sounds splendid, but I don't know if the meal would last very long. I think you have to be a verified Obamazombie to win a prize like that.

[OAW]

It's not that it's a "stumper question". I imagine it's simply a matter of that which seems "obvious" to you is also "obvious" to everyone else ... and therefore doesn't warrant comment.

That being said, I believe this sums up the "issue" quite succinctly:

Originally Posted by hyteckit

But it's only okay if you are a big donor and can afford $50k a plate?

$50k for a dinner plate ==> Respect for the office of the Presidency
Free dinner with the president ==> No respect for the office of the Presidency

Naturally the Obama campaign is going to maintain an email contact list of all who submit an entry. Those who do so are more than likely Obama supporters. They will request campaign donations. They will seek to recruit campaign volunteers by zip code. They will send out period communications from the campaign. Etc. This is all standard political activity during an election cycle. So the million dollar question for the thread is .... why does this cause YOU so much consternation?

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's not that it's a "stumper question". I imagine it's simply a matter of that which seems "obvious" to you is also "obvious" to everyone else ... and therefore doesn't warrant comment.

It was a direct and open question posed to all the participants in the thread.

It looks here like you're accusing me of being unreasonable in expecting an response.

[andi*pandi]

My thoughts on reading your post: Of course it is for fundraising/campaigning. It says so right there.

What's different about this, as opposed to a $1000 gold plate dinner, is that anyone can win even without donating. And of course Obama is going to have some gold plate dinners too. Every candidate does.

[subego]

Where does it say that?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

My thoughts on reading your post: Of course it is for fundraising/campaigning. It says so right there.

What's different about this, as opposed to a $1000 gold plate dinner, is that anyone can win even without donating. And of course Obama is going to have some gold plate dinners too. Every candidate does.

Sweetie, $1000 isn't gold plate anymore, that's more like paper and plastic.

[andi*pandi]

campaign budget = y * $x gold plate dinners, where x = <arbitrary large number> and y = infinity voters

[andi*pandi]

No purchase, payment, or contribution necessary to enter or win. Contributing will not improve chances of winning. Void where prohibited. Entries must be received by June 30, 2012. You may enter by contributing to Sponsor here or click here to enter without contributing.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That sounds splendid, but I don't know if the meal would last very long. I think you have to be a verified Obamazombie to win a prize like that.

Oh, I dunno. I'd enjoy talking with the man, I'm sure. Carter is a hoot, met him at a HFH thing in Chattanooga. I'd probably feel the same about Clinton too. They're likely all interesting people, but they're just people. They follow their supporters and friends like anyone else.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

No purchase, payment, or contribution necessary to enter or win. Contributing will not improve chances of winning. Void where prohibited. Entries must be received by June 30, 2012. You may enter by contributing to Sponsor here or click here to enter without contributing.

No purchase, payment, or contribution necessary to enter or win. Contributing will not improve chances of winning. Void where prohibited. Entries must be received by June 30, 2012. You may enter by contributing to Sponsor here or click here to enter without contributing.

For the part where they're telling you this is about campaign fundraising, the spend an awful lot of time talking about contributing has nothing to do with it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Oh, I dunno. I'd enjoy talking with the man, I'm sure. Carter is a hoot, met him at a HFH thing in Chattanooga. I'd probably feel the same about Clinton too. They're likely all interesting people, but they're just people. They follow their supporters and friends like anyone else.

I'd crack a beer with W.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

It was a direct and open question posed to all the participants in the thread.

It looks here like you're accusing me of being unreasonable in expecting an response.

I'm not accusing you of anything actually. Just giving my 2 cents on why no one had responded to your question at the time.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

No purchase, payment, or contribution necessary to enter or win. Contributing will not improve chances of winning. Void where prohibited. Entries must be received by June 30, 2012. You may enter by contributing to Sponsor here or click here to enter without contributing.

For the part where they're telling you this is about campaign fundraising, the spend an awful lot of time talking about contributing has nothing to do with it.

You do realize that is required by law right? Here's similar verbiage from the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes ....

OFFICIAL RULES/SWEEPSTAKES FACTS INFORMATION
Please see the Official Rules and Sweepstakes Facts on the page(s) where an entry is being submitted. If ordering, please see the Sweepstakes Facts on the page(s) where an order is being placed.

ALL PRIZES ARE GUARANTEED TO BE AWARDED AS OFFERED
NO PURCHASE OR PAYMENT NECESSARY TO ENTER
BUYING WON’T HELP YOU WIN

Again. Nothing to see here.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You do realize that is required by law right? Here's similar verbiage from the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes ....



Again. Nothing to see here.

OAW

Not sure how that's relevant to the point I was addressing (the clarity with which they're stating their motive).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not sure how that's relevant to the point I was addressing (the clarity with which they're stating their motive).

Not entirely certain what your point is. You concerned that they're being too clear about their motives?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Not entirely certain what your point is. You concerned that they're being too clear about their motives?

Not clear enough.

When you go to a campaign fundraiser, it says "campaign fundraiser" in the title.

Likewise, I'm not so sure the quid pro quo in a fundraising dinner and this is as analogous as everyone is making it out to be.

What does a donor get out of donating to a campaign? Isn't the point to help someone you want to win the office win the office? Note, I'm not saying there aren't other reasons, but isn't that the through-line? Even if your intent is to donate so much money you can force this guy to take your call, what's that worth if the guy doesn't win?

That's the basic quid pro quo with campaign donations. Candidate X wants to win the office, you want candidate X to win the office.

Let's look at the sweepstakes now. Where is the word candidate or campaign? You're not seeing them because that's not what's being offered. This isn't win a dinner with candidate Barack, it's dinner with President Barack. What's being sold isn't an opportunity to help someone win an office, it's an opportunity to be around someone because they're in office.


Try this another way. Mitt and Barack both have fundraisers. Would it be appropriate for Barack to state "my fundraiser will give you more value for your dollar because I'm President and Mitt's not"?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

Try this another way. Mitt and Barack both have fundraisers. Would it be appropriate for Barack to state "my fundraiser will give you more value for your dollar because I'm President and Mitt's not"?

So Pres. Obama is the high-end escort and Mitt Romney is the cheap hooker.

[subego]

Don't make me imagine a pasty Mitt's wang.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

Don't make me imagine a pasty Mitt's wang.

And we know Pres. Obama has a big stick.

Biden said so.

[subego]

I'm fine with Obama wang.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's not that it's a "stumper question". I imagine it's simply a matter of that which seems "obvious" to you is also "obvious" to everyone else ... and therefore doesn't warrant comment.

So, now that I was finally able to tease out of myself what the issue I'm having is, I should assume the lack of comment is due to everybody agreeing with me, right?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, now that I was finally able to tease out of myself what the issue I'm having is, I should assume the lack of comment is due to everybody agreeing with me, right?

I can only speak for myself. So I'll simply respond with this ...

Originally Posted by subego

Let's look at the sweepstakes now. Where is the word candidate or campaign? You're not seeing them because that's not what's being offered. This isn't win a dinner with candidate Barack, it's dinner with President Barack. What's being sold isn't an opportunity to help someone win an office, it's an opportunity to be around someone because they're in office.

So a sweepstakes is being offered to win a dinner with the POTUS. Campaign donations are not required to win in compliance with the law. But naturally they would be appreciated. A valid email address is required because they have to be able to contact the winner. And naturally this info will be used to promote the campaign message, organize volunteer efforts, and solicit campaign donations. The webpage you listed has a link to the Privacy Policy which states:

How Do We Use the Personal Information We Collect?
We use personal information collected through our Sites for the purposes described in this Policy or elsewhere on the Sites. For example, we may use personal information we collect:

- to provide the services, products, or information you request, and to process and complete such requests and any related transactions;
- to send you confirmations, receipts, updates, alerts, and support and administrative messages and otherwise facilitate your use of, and our administration and operation of, the Sites;
- to notify you about important changes to the Sites;
- to send you newsletters and otherwise provide you with information or services you request or that we think will be of interest to you, such as sending you information to keep you informed about various campaigns, candidates, issues, events, resources, promotions, contests, products and services;
- to help manage the campaign and to connect you with other supporters, and to solicit volunteers, donations and support for OFA and for candidates, issues and organizations that we support;
- to remind you to send in your voter registration form and to vote;
- to assist you in finding your registration information, polling location, and campaign events near you;
- to contact you if other information is necessary under Federal election laws;
- to request feedback and to otherwise contact you about your use of the Sites;
- to respond to your emails, submissions, questions, comments, and requests and to provide customer service;
- to monitor and analyze site usage and trends, and to personalize and improve the Sites and our users' experiences on the Sites and with the campaign, such as providing content, or features that match your profiles or interests, and to increase the Sites' functionality and user friendliness;
- to serve ads, on this Site or other websites or media, based on the information you provide and the actions you take;
- to notify and contact contest and sweepstakes entrants; and
for any other purpose for which the information was collected.

But if the verbiage in a Privacy Policy is too obscure or less than transparent, there is the fact that the Dinner with Barack webpage you listed is hosted on the Barack Obama website ... which is BY DEFINITION a campaign website for the candidate Barack Obama.

But wait there's more!

If you provide your email address and zip code and click that big red "Get Started" button on the Dinner with Barack webpage you listed ... the very next thing that happens after your entry is submitted is that you are redirected to the https://donate.barackobama.com webpage where a campaign donation solicitation is made. Which again, is to be expected.

But wait there's still more!

Regardless of whether or not you you choose to make a campaign donation, you are given this final message:

Thanks for entering Dinner with Barack.

You should know that any donation you make automatically enters you to win again. Pitch in here to throw your name in the hat one more time.

Where once again a solicitation for a campaign donation is made.

So my point in all this is that I think that it strains credulity to suggest that it is not "clear enough" that this sweepstakes to have dinner with the President is being offered in conjunction with a political campaign. You simply can't be on a campaign website and not realize that there is a campaign involved. You can't see verbiage that says that you don't have to make a campaign donation in order to win and not realize that there is a campaign involved. You can't click Get Started and immediately see a solicitation for a campaign donation and not realize that there is a campaign involved.

So the million dollar question is ... what would it take to make the patently obvious even more clear for you?

OAW

[subego]

So, your example of how they're being up front is a link to a privacy policy, which no one reads, ever (exception: when in an Internet argument), and that after they get the goods from you they set out for they say "donate"




Do you have an answer to my question? Would it be appropriate for Obama to say meeting him is more valuable than meeting with Romney because he is President and Romney is not?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, your example of how they're being up front is a link to a privacy policy, which no one reads, ever (exception: when in an Internet argument), and that after they get the goods from you they set out for they say "donate"

We'll just note how you totally ignored my point about the how the Dinner with Barack webpage is hosted on a campaign website ... which I dare say for most people amounts to clue #1.

Originally Posted by subego 

Do you have an answer to my question? Would it be appropriate for Obama to say meeting him is more valuable than meeting with Romney because Obama is President and Romney is not?

I don't really see what this question has to do with the price of tea in China. In any event, I don't think President Obama needs to make such a statement. I think most people (presuming they were inclined to meet the individual in question in the first place) would naturally view the opportunity to have dinner with a sitting President to be "more valuable" than having dinner with a presidential wannabe. I was certainly not a big fan of Ronald Reagan. But I definitely would have valued the opportunity to have dinner with the man more than I would have valued a dinner with Walter Mondale. To be able to tell family and friends that you had dinner with the President of the United States and you are able to break out a picture of the two of you to prove it carries with it the "bragging rights" that come from an opportunity of a lifetime. I'm just saying ...

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

We'll just note how you totally ignored my point about the how the Dinner with Barack webpage is hosted on a campaign website ... which I dare say for most people amounts to clue #1.

I didn't ignore it. It's just far less relevant to the point than you imagine.

You seem to be conflating the ideas of there being evidence it's purely for campaign purposes, and them being up-front about it. Up front is saying it up front. Your URL isn't up front unless you're a browser. I'm on mobile, so I only get to see the URL while the page is loading. The same goes for the privacy policy. If I have to follow your trail of crumbs to put the picture together, that's not being up-front.

Originally Posted by OAW 

I don't really see what this question has to do with the price of tea in China. In any event, I don't think President Obama needs to make such a statement. I think most people (presuming they were inclined to meet the individual in question in the first place) would naturally view the opportunity to have dinner with a sitting President to be "more valuable" than having dinner with a presidential wannabe. I was certainly not a big fan of Ronald Reagan. But I definitely would have valued the opportunity to have dinner with the man more than I would have valued a dinner with Walter Mondale. To be able to tell family and friends that you had dinner with the President of the United States and you are able to break out a picture of the two of you to prove it carries with it the "bragging rights" that come from an opportunity of a lifetime. I'm just saying ...

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask if the statement was accurate, I asked if he were to use the statement would it be appropriate, as in "is it appropriate to use the fact he's in office as a selling point over his opponents?"

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask if the statement was accurate, I asked if he were to use the statement would it be appropriate, as in "is it appropriate to use the fact he's in office as a selling point over his opponents?"

Honestly it's a moot point. To paraphrase a famous line ....

"It's good to be the king President."

So such things go without saying. The webpage simply says "Dinner with Barack". It certainly does NOT say "Dinner with Barack ... because I'm the President and Romney's not".

Let me make an analogy to better get my point across. Halle Berry is an incredibly beautiful woman. So she doesn't have to directly draw attention to her looks as a "selling point over her competition". Her beauty speaks for itself. It's self-evident. For a woman of her caliber to say "Ask me out on a date because I'm more attractive than her." is completely unnecessary ... and it would come off as self-aggrandizing at best were she to do so. Similarly, President Obama doesn't have to make such comparisons. Obama is the President and Romney is not. Which is why you don't see Romney mentioned anywhere on the "Dinner with Barack" webpage.

OAW

[subego]

Are we looking at the same webpage? It says "[y]our chance to meet the President". That's (dare I say it) right up-front.

They feel the need to make this apparently self-evident point, because that's what they're selling.

In your analogy, the ad would say "your chance to meet an attractive woman". That would be tacky, no?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are we looking at the same webpage? It says "[y]our chance to meet the President".

They feel the need to make this apparently self-evident point, because that's what they're selling.

In your analogy, the ad would say "your chance to meet an attractive woman". That would be tacky, no?

It would seem we are not. I'll remind you of the question you posed ....

Originally Posted by subego

Would it be appropriate for Barack to state "my fundraiser will give you more value for your dollar because I'm President and Mitt's not"?

There is a comparison inherent in that question. A comparison that the "Dinner with Barack" webpage simply does NOT make because there is no mention of Romney. Also, referring to the President as ... well, you know ... "the President" is certainly not "tacky". It's the norm the last time I checked.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It would seem we are not.

Here's the version I've been seeing:

Originally Posted by OAW 

There is a comparison inherent in that question. A comparison that the "Dinner with Barack" webpage simply does NOT make because there is no mention of Romney.

This is my point. If they were being up-front about the fact this was solely for campaign purposes the comparison would be inescapable.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Also, referring to the President as ... well, you know ... "the President" is certainly not "tacky". It's the norm the last time I checked.

This isn't the question I asked. I'm noting a trend.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's the version I've been seeing:





This is my point. If they were being up-front about the fact this was solely for campaign purposes the comparison would be inescapable.

Regarding the image you posted above ... note the URL that says www dot barackobama dot com. It does NOT say www dot whitehouse dot gov. Again, clue #1 that this is campaign-related. Also note the campaign logo in the upper left corner which is NOT the Presidential Seal. Again, clue #2 that this is campaign-related.

If that is not "up-front" enough for you then that's cool. I simply don't think the majority of people see it the way you do is all.

OAW

[subego]

You may not be familiar with mobile safari. Here's how it looks the moment you scroll:




If you feel they're being up front, then answer me this. Is a little symbol in the corner, some sweepstakes fine print, an URL you may never see or look at, and a privacy policy you will never see or look at...

Tell me, is this as up-front as an invitation to a dinner which says "fundraiser" in the name?

Could there be any reason why they usually put "fundraiser" right up-front on those invitations? Is there a reason they didn't put a similar term here?

Is there anything in this sweepstakes which is as clear and obvious about its purpose (harvesting email) as a campaign fundraiser is being clear and obvious about its purpose when it says "campaign fundraiser" on the top of the invitation?

[andi*pandi]

I think the reason they didn't put "fundraiser" in the title is that anyone can enter without contributing, so fundraising is not a barrier to access, but a hopeful byproduct. Not the main focus.

I'd have no problem with Mitt hosting a similar dinner and saying "Meet the governor."

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I think the reason they didn't put "fundraiser" in the title is that anyone can enter without contributing, so fundraising is not a barrier to access, but a hopeful byproduct. Not the main focus.

You are absolutely correct. This is why chose the phrase "similar term".

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'd have no problem with Mitt hosting a similar dinner and saying "Meet the governor."

Okay, but what if it was a standard type of fundraising dinner. Would it be equally okay there?