Cashing in on political stardom

Barack Obama has two best-selling books, a nice salary as a senator and a wife with a handsome income. Earlier this year he reported assets of up to $1.14 million in addition to his Chicago home.

That’s small change to some of his presidential rivals, but more than enough to create entanglements and controversies for Obama, a Democrat who has been positioning himself as a friend of the little guy on financial matters.

Recently, he scolded Wall Street executives for focusing too much on their own success and not enough on what’s good for the whole nation. And he called for tax cuts for the working poor.

“I didn’t just discover working folks on the campaign trail. That’s what I’ve been doing my entire adult life,” he told union members Tuesday as he recounted his experience as a community organizer and civil rights attorney.

Obama’s own success allowed him to buy a $1.65 million mansion near the University of Chicago in 2005. Political insider Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who was under federal investigation, bought the vacant lot next door and sold part of it to Obama, giving the senator more space.

There has been no suggestion that the arrangement was illegal. Obama paid Rezko for the extra space. But Obama has since said it was a mistake to do business with Rezko, who was indicted last year on charges he sought kickbacks from companies doing business with an Illinois state pension fund.

Rezko and his companies contributed nearly $20,000 to Obama’s state and federal races. Obama now has donated that amount to charity.

When he entered the U.S. Senate in 2005, Obama’s salary jumped to more than $154,000 — nearly triple what he had been making as an Illinois legislator.

His sudden political stardom also brought him a three-book deal worth $1.9 million from Random House Inc. The deal includes a children’s book, and Obama says he’ll give $200,000 from that book to charity.

His contract gives Obama 15 percent of the sale of each hardcover book, 8 percent or more from paperbacks and 10 percent from audiobooks. His first book under the deal, “The Audacity of Hope,” has sold more than 1 million copies since it was released nearly a year ago.

After Obama was elected to the Senate, his wife’s income tripled thanks to a promotion she received at the University of Chicago Hospitals. When Michelle Obama rose from executive director to vice president, her salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962.

Obama says his wife’s promotion was based on her merits — she’s a Harvard Law School graduate — and not on his Senate victory. “You can’t fault her for being smarter and better qualified for all sorts of jobs than I am,” he said last year.

Mrs. Obama was also elected to the board of directors of an Illinois-based food supplier called TreeHouse Foods. For that, she was paid about $45,000 in 2005 and $51,000 in 2006.

But Wal-Mart is a major TreeHouse customer, and her husband has criticized the wages and benefits that Wal-Mart provides its workers. Mrs. Obama resigned from the TreeHouse board in May, citing the increasing demands of the presidential campaign, and she has also scaled back her hours for the university hospital system.

The government disclosure reports Obama has filed over the years, and the tax returns he has released voluntarily, reveal a relatively uncomplicated financial picture.

He has made money as a legislator, lawyer and lecturer at the University of Chicago. She has worked for the university and its hospital system and for TreeHouse. Their assets — which are between $457,000 and $1.14 million — are mostly in mutual funds and pensions.

That’s paltry compared with some other presidential candidates. Democrats John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani are all worth tens of millions of dollars. Republican Mitt Romney is the wealthiest candidate in the race, reporting assets of between $190 million and $250 million.

Voters rarely seem concerned about whether a candidate is filthy rich or merely wealthy. Matt Bennett, who has worked on several Democratic presidential campaigns, said the main exception would if voters saw hypocrisy — a candidate talking like a blue-collar worker but spending like a movie star, for instance.

“They expect that their leaders are going to be well off, and for most people the difference between having a net worth of $1 million and $20 million is basically irrelevant,” Bennett said.

Still, Obama’s money is enough to raise occasional complications.

In 2005, Obama’s broker invested more than $50,000 in two companies backed by some of his top campaign donors. Obama denied knowing anything about the investments, on which he lost about $13,000, and there was no evidence that he used his office to help the companies.

Ronald Powell, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881 in Illinois, isn’t interested in Obama’s finances. What matters, he said, is that Obama has a record of working directly with poor families that wanted better lives.

“He worked the street. He knocked on doors,” Powell said. “He speaks from personal experience.”

2 Responses to "Cashing in on political stardom"

  1. nuQler Ostrich  September 29, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    So unlike one of the other candidates. A candidate who still lives in a house he purchased for less than $25,000 which is in a working-class Catholic neighborhood in Cleveland.

    A candidate who knows what ordinary working people’s lives are like. What their lives are like when they have to count pennies to pay the light bill, or when they find themselves homeless and have to live in their car.

    The candidate I’m talking about is Dennis Kucinich.

    The guy who saved the Cleveland public electrical company MUNY light even when it meant the end of his political career. He kept his promise. A politician who keeps his promises, so maybe that’s why he gets so little good press. The media don’t know how to act around an honest politician.

    Dennis Kucinich

  2. SEAL  October 2, 2007 at 3:28 am

    What I would like to know is: why the headline “ Obama cashing in on political stardom” and why even bother to write about it? The article clearly shows that there is nothing amiss or that which would be of concern to anyone. It describes an above average married couple who have applied themselves to achieve success. A couple that is living the American dream. Does this author have nothing to do or is he counting on the American reader’s habit of skimming headlines? A clearly negative appearing headline – “cashing in.”

    Apparently the employees of the MSM are under orders to cast every democrat (or anyone else that opposes the Bush doctrines) in a negative light any way possible if they will go this far out of the way to do it. I say that because this is not an isolated instance. It may not be the best example but it is typical. Over the past several years, I have seen more and more of this sort of thing. Too often what they write about the democrats is outright falsehood. The “free press” has become nothing other than a propaganda machine for the ultra right wing of the Republican Party. I remember one of my required classes in school teaching what constituted news, what was opinion, and what was bullshit. This article obviously qualifies for the last on that list. It screams “OMIGOD they are making money!” The great sin for a politician – automatic suspicion.

    However, I’m just as disturbed by those who consider another candidate to automatically be a more worthy individual for retaining his “poor” status. I find nothing noble in that. As I understand it, Kucinich and Obama faced different circumstances and difficulties in their careers and Kucinich had to make a decision that caused him political and financial setbacks. But I don’t see why I should consider him a more honest or worthy individual for that. Who can say what Obama would have done given the same circumstance? And I don’t agree with the attitude that people with money cannot relate to the poor or wouldn’t be concerned enough about their plight to attempt to develop programs that would give them more opportunity for a better life if they were in a position to do it. Remember the Kennedys? And then there is Bush. What better examples? You find people with money will have very different attitudes. It isn’t the money, it’s the person. Most often it is nurturing.

    I grew up rich and didn’t know it. We never seemed to have much money. But we had all that land. I didn’t view it as money, though. It was work. Consequently, I identified with the working class. I still don’t have a lot of money. Enough plus a guaranteed income that means I don’t have to worry about it and I don’t owe anyone anything. Everything I have, such as it is, is bought and paid for. Yeah, the reality is that I am in better financial condition than at least 80% of the people and I am acutely aware of that, but I still identify with and relate to the working class. I understand that they are the backbone of this nation and I know quite a few very wealthy people who, also, know and respect that. I would never fault anyone for becoming financially successful. That’s the name of the game in America, isn’t it? The one with the most when he dies wins?

    Making money doesn’t automatically make the person an asshole. It usually means he was smarter and worked harder than other people. Unless they were just lucky and born into it. Those (like Bush) are the ones that normally look down upon the poor. My understanding is that Obama didn’t start out poor and had advantages. Obviously he has taken advantage of that and successfully endeavored to better himself. I respect that and want a president or any other government official that has demonstrated the ability for self improvement. If he can’t do that, how could I expect him to lead this nation?

Comments are closed.