Skip to main content

Here are the rules for the Dinner With Obama contest:

Fifty (50) potential winners will be selected by a random drawing from all eligible entries to be held at Obama for America Headquarters on January 20, 2012. Sponsor may, at its option, conduct a background check on each potential winner. Sponsor reserves the right to disqualify any potential winner from receiving any prize based on such background check if Sponsor determines, in its sole discretion that awarding any prize to such potential winner could result in a safety or security risk to any person or persons or could result in the disruption of any event associated with the Promotion. Sponsor will, in its sole discretion, then select three (3) winners from the list of eligible potential winners on the basis of criteria determined and applied by Sponsor to provide for an appropriate range of views, backgrounds, and interests among the winners selected. Winners will be notified by phone or e-mail by January 31, 2012. To claim the prize, each winner should follow the instructions and comply with the conditions contained in his/her notification. Winners must then identify potential guests to Sponsor, and Sponsor may, at its option, conduct the same background check and process applicable to potential winners. Sponsor reserves the right to disqualify any potential guest in its sole discretion.

I believe that these rules may be illegal; more below the squiggle.

Like any legal lottery of this kind, there is no purchase necessary to enter. In fact, you can legally enter for free up to 10 times a day. But entry doesn't get you a chance to win; it gets you a chance to be one of the 50 "potential winners". If you believe that people who did not donate will be selected as one of the 4 real winners... I have a bridge for you.

Is Obama allowed to have dinner with whomever he wants? Of course. Is he allowed to run a lottery and have dinner with the winner? Yes. Is he allowed to screen out genuine security risks from that list? I'd say so.

But when it comes to "Sponsor will, in its sole discretion, then select three (3) winners...", that gives an obvious way to make the "no purchase necessary" option a dead letter. IANAL, but this may be stretching the law a bit too far.

Why am I writing this diary? I would like to enter and have a real chance of talking to Obama. I would like other former Obama financial supporters like myself to be eligible to enter, so that if one of us won, we could tell him why we no longer want to support his campaign.

I admire and support the "dinner with a normal person" contest, and even consider it appropriate to use it as an opportunity to ask for money. But I think that the "no purchase necessary" laws have a reason for existence, and that they should be followed in this case. The rules as they are written certainly violate the spirit of these laws, if not the letter.

I would hope that the Obama campaign can fix this for the next time they run the contest. Simply remove the "select 3 winners" text, but retain the "safety and security risk" rules as is.

I expect some flames in response to this diary. But I believe that this site should not shrink back from responsible questions, whether major or minor, about the legality of public official's actions, no matter what the level or party of that official. The president is not above the law, not even minor laws like this.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site