UPDATE: Judging from the lamp, it looks like the White House, seen here in Obama’s address to Berliners in 2009:
A reader sends in this George H. W. Bush ad from 1992 that begins with him looking out the windows of the Oval Office:
And this ad, from Michael Dukakis in 1988, used the image of the Oval Office but was not filmed there.
UPDATE: RealClearPolitics finds more Obama videos filmed in the same spot, confirming it is, indeed, the White House where Obama’s pitch for his campaign dinner contest.
Aside from the campaign financing rules, isn't it illegal to make the payment of money a requirement for entering a contest? Of course, if the prize is dinner with Obama and Biden, you'd have to pay me to enter!
Funny how things hit you. I thought the Bush ad was very good. But it included two things: (1) health care for all (what was that about?); and (2) a bridge to the future.
I had never realized that Clinton in 1996 stole Bush's line about a bridge to the future.
I think most ads are very ineffective in terms of moving votes, and as good as the Bush ad was, it probably did little or nothing.
Real Clear Politics has two pictures - one of Obama delivering a weekly address, the other of the raffle promo.
In the weekly address picture, just beside the table with the lamp is a red chair, and you can see the same chair in the raffle promo if you brighten the picture a bit.
I agree with kinggeorge. Using pictures of an incombent in the Oval Office is fine with me. However, actually raising money IN the White House just doesn't wash with me. The White House should never ever be used as a fundraising prop. Filming or bringing in people into the White House just to raise money . . . no way. That should just be flat illegal which I assume is.
And there is a difference between the Obama ad and the GHWB ad. Obama is a fundraising plea. The GHWB ad is just a re-election ad. There was no fundraising.
Well today we learn that it was filmed in the "residence" not an "office", so because it is technically not illegal you should have no further concerns (just as no one should have been concerned about Anthony Wiener because he didn't technically break the law -- and PS there are no "hostilities" in Libya either. Isn't "law" fun?!)
Wasn't Bill Clinton accused of "renting out" the Lincoln bedroom to top fundraisers? That wasn't technically illegal, so no one can complain about it either.
And didn't Obama promise "the most ethnical administration ever"? ;-)
The more things "hope & change", the more it feels like we're in a time warp to the past (usually the Carter years, sometimes Nixon or Clinton.)
Another issue to consider, does this entire fundraising scheme run afoul of state gaming laws and/or internet gambling regulations? Raffles are considered a game of chance...
When I was involved with the VFW, I had to become very familiar with gambling laws and (in PA) Small Games of Chance laws.
For something to be considered "gambling," you must have three components:
A prize
Chance
A consideration
A consideration is an entry fee, raffle ticket, etc. The prize must be of greater value than the consideration (according to the folks I talked to at the PA Liquor Control Enforcement).
Airfare, dinner and lodging can be considered a prize and are more than the minimum of $15.
Honestly, I'm showcked they put a value for "minimum." That's why companies put that tag line, "No purchase neccessary." I mean, they may still fix the winner to be someone who purchased, but you certainly don't advertise an entry price.
Who knows? Congress may have exempted politicians from gambling laws. Explains Social Security.
Is this some kind of dog and pony show? Exactly what are the laws or FCC rules concerning these kinds of ads? All these commentaries are just smoke and mirrors without giving us the explicit rules that have been violated. Don't they have anything better to write about? That said, you couldn't pay me enough to have dinner with the foreigner masquerading as our President, because I'd probably end up in jail for the derogatory things I could say to it.
Both of those videos of Obama were indeed filmed in the WH - I am a former (low-level) WH staffer and know exactly where that area is. In the address to Berliners, you can see the China Room in the background. It appears both videos - his fundraising appeal and address to Berliners - were filmed in the Map Room.
In the WH response to the accusations of this being an illegal filming of a fundraising appeal in the WH, they say that there is a difference between "official" rooms and the residence. They legally have a point, and here, the Map Room is not part of any public tour and could for legal purposes be considered part of the residence and not part of the public areas. Thus, they are likely on sound legal footing here, though the ethical question is open for debate.
I have to say there seems to be a sloppiness when it comes to the Obama White House when following the rules and getting facts right. Not to shocking that they would make this kind of slip up.
Aside from where the video was filmed, a lot of states have prohibitions against raffles and lotteries for anything other than charitable organizations. Wouldn't a national appeal, across multistate lines, of necessity, violate some if not all of those state laws?
It seems to me a clip in a campaign ad showing the incumbent candidate working in their office is no big deal.
But direct appeals for partisan political cash from the WH "using WH resources" is at least unseemly.
Didn't Al Gore get into trouble for making fundraising calls from the VP's office? Isn't this the youtube version of the same thing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAside from the campaign financing rules, isn't it illegal to make the payment of money a requirement for entering a contest? Of course, if the prize is dinner with Obama and Biden, you'd have to pay me to enter!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFunny how things hit you. I thought the Bush ad was very good. But it included two things: (1) health care for all (what was that about?); and (2) a bridge to the future.
I had never realized that Clinton in 1996 stole Bush's line about a bridge to the future.
I think most ads are very ineffective in terms of moving votes, and as good as the Bush ad was, it probably did little or nothing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNatasha, they included a "no donation necessary" option to enter the drawing, thus avoiding the "illegal lottery" thing.
That said, yes, this is at least tacky, if not illegal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReal Clear Politics has two pictures - one of Obama delivering a weekly address, the other of the raffle promo.
In the weekly address picture, just beside the table with the lamp is a red chair, and you can see the same chair in the raffle promo if you brighten the picture a bit.
It is definitely the same location.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with kinggeorge. Using pictures of an incombent in the Oval Office is fine with me. However, actually raising money IN the White House just doesn't wash with me. The White House should never ever be used as a fundraising prop. Filming or bringing in people into the White House just to raise money . . . no way. That should just be flat illegal which I assume is.
And there is a difference between the Obama ad and the GHWB ad. Obama is a fundraising plea. The GHWB ad is just a re-election ad. There was no fundraising.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusereally? GW wasn't trying to raise money for re-election? No TV ad is done for any other purpose....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAu contraire!
I direct you to . . . Mack North (wav file only, curse you copywright laws!):
External Link
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe talking about Obama the Messiah can you forget GW because he was a gentleman at least a true American not SOROS associate
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell today we learn that it was filmed in the "residence" not an "office", so because it is technically not illegal you should have no further concerns (just as no one should have been concerned about Anthony Wiener because he didn't technically break the law -- and PS there are no "hostilities" in Libya either. Isn't "law" fun?!)
Wasn't Bill Clinton accused of "renting out" the Lincoln bedroom to top fundraisers? That wasn't technically illegal, so no one can complain about it either.
And didn't Obama promise "the most ethnical administration ever"? ;-)
The more things "hope & change", the more it feels like we're in a time warp to the past (usually the Carter years, sometimes Nixon or Clinton.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother issue to consider, does this entire fundraising scheme run afoul of state gaming laws and/or internet gambling regulations? Raffles are considered a game of chance...
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen I was involved with the VFW, I had to become very familiar with gambling laws and (in PA) Small Games of Chance laws.
For something to be considered "gambling," you must have three components:
A prize
Chance
A consideration
A consideration is an entry fee, raffle ticket, etc. The prize must be of greater value than the consideration (according to the folks I talked to at the PA Liquor Control Enforcement).
Airfare, dinner and lodging can be considered a prize and are more than the minimum of $15.
Honestly, I'm showcked they put a value for "minimum." That's why companies put that tag line, "No purchase neccessary." I mean, they may still fix the winner to be someone who purchased, but you certainly don't advertise an entry price.
Who knows? Congress may have exempted politicians from gambling laws. Explains Social Security.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewinner winner, chicken dinner
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs this some kind of dog and pony show? Exactly what are the laws or FCC rules concerning these kinds of ads? All these commentaries are just smoke and mirrors without giving us the explicit rules that have been violated. Don't they have anything better to write about? That said, you couldn't pay me enough to have dinner with the foreigner masquerading as our President, because I'd probably end up in jail for the derogatory things I could say to it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoth of those videos of Obama were indeed filmed in the WH - I am a former (low-level) WH staffer and know exactly where that area is. In the address to Berliners, you can see the China Room in the background. It appears both videos - his fundraising appeal and address to Berliners - were filmed in the Map Room.
In the WH response to the accusations of this being an illegal filming of a fundraising appeal in the WH, they say that there is a difference between "official" rooms and the residence. They legally have a point, and here, the Map Room is not part of any public tour and could for legal purposes be considered part of the residence and not part of the public areas. Thus, they are likely on sound legal footing here, though the ethical question is open for debate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have to say there seems to be a sloppiness when it comes to the Obama White House when following the rules and getting facts right. Not to shocking that they would make this kind of slip up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAside from where the video was filmed, a lot of states have prohibitions against raffles and lotteries for anything other than charitable organizations. Wouldn't a national appeal, across multistate lines, of necessity, violate some if not all of those state laws?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat if he just borrowed the lamp from the White House? Is that illegal?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse