The Midwest Democracy Network sent a questionnaire to various political campaigns in September 2007. One question asked:
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?Obama answered the following:
In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator JohnMcCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
On Thursday, June 19, 2008, Obama released this statement:
We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election. This means we’ll be forgoing more than $80 million in public funds during the final months of this election. It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken. . .Really? Did Obama suddenly have a change of heart because sometime between September of 2007 and today, he realized that the system is "broken"? I suspect it has more to do with the fact that between September of 2007 and today, he realized that he can raise a heck of a lot of money. $295.52 million, so far, including $10.72 million for the general election. Compare that to McCain's paltry $121.9 million.
Sounds to me like an announcement by some presidential candidate that [he] would forgo public financing so [he] could raise unlimited funds in the general election.
How is that for preserv[ing] the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election?
More importantly, how is that for "a new kind of politics"?
9 comments:
Obama's campaign is publicly financed. He has done extremely well in generating donations from millions of individual donors, creating the first REAL publicly financed Presidential election campaign.
He's right that the current system is broken, but you're also right in calling his flip-flop on the matter. I'm sure he is just as surprised as I am that his campaign has not only survived, but flourished while relying on individual donors for financing. He's making a calculated political move by rejecting public financing - he knows it's a flip-flop, but he's betting that most Americans really don't care. He's probably right, and it will give him a huge financial advantage in the general election.
But until there is a public financing system that removes lobbyists and PACs from the picture, Obama's campaign should be a model for election fundraising. The only wart on the whole thing was his pledge to use the public financing system in the first place.
It cracks me up that conservatives, who supposedly champion smaller government, lower taxes, and fiscal responsibility, are all up in arms about Obama breaking from a taxpayer-financed government program to have his campaign funded only by voluntary donors. Only those that want to donate are financing his campaign, and you're crucifying him for it? Who's the socialist now? ;)
I think that the way Obama's doing it is the right way and the only way that ANY presidential candidate should run. I NEVER check that dumb little $3 box on my taxes. I don't think that tax dollars should be distributed to anybody that is trying to obtain an office. You want to get elected, you pay your own way, get supporters to pay your way, run a fiscally responsible campaign, etc. Don't come to me the taxpayer and start whining for money. Nope. Not what I'm paying taxes for.
BBD is DEAD ON. Conservatives need to wake up and see that what Obama is doing is the right thing (the way we should want it) while McCain is taking the wrong side of the issue (bigger government helping the unmotivated).
And on a related topic: McCain is doomed.
I have no problem with Obama taking the voluntary donations of people to run his campaign. I wish he had just said it from the beginning, and I don't see any reason why he couldn't have (political reasons, I mean). Doesn't seem like it would have been a turnoff to people, as I Don't think it will be now. I think people are generally pretty amenable to NOT having their money taken (unless they choose to give it) so they can finance and view pandering, not-entirely-accurate commercials for months on end. :).
Do you really think McCain is doomed, Joel? Everything I read calls it pretty darn close (but maybe "they" just liked the close Clinton/Obama race so much they're hoping to duplicate it in the general!)
Unless some serious negative Obama revelation surfaces in the next couple months, I agree McCain is doomed.
Check out this national popular vote trend graphic from one of my favorite blogs, fivethirtyeight.com. It is a blog for the political statistics junkie, and it attempts to predict the general election result based on demographics, polling, and trends. It is run by Nate Silver, whose day job is statistical analysis for Baseball Prospectus. The blog was astonishingly accurate during the Democratic primary campaign, and is a highly entertaining (if highly geeky) read.
"It cracks me up that conservatives, who supposedly champion smaller government, lower taxes, and fiscal responsibility, are all up in arms about Obama breaking from a taxpayer-financed government program to have his campaign funded only by voluntary donors. Only those that want to donate are financing his campaign, and you're crucifying him for it? Who's the socialist now?"
Amen, Dave. Amen.
(Insert gospel choir here)
And, lets face it - Obama is a......(wait for it)....politician!!! They change their mind. They flip flop - that's kind of the nature of the beats. In this case, I'm pretty happy that he flip-flopped in THIS direction - I also think publically funded elections is the only way to go - WHY should we pay for THAT?
He's making a calculated political move by rejecting public financing - he knows it's a flip-flop, but he's betting that most Americans really don't care.
This is pretty much the heart of what I was getting at. It's politics as usual. Honestly, I do prefer campaign financing the way he is doing it (now). I don't check the $3 box on my taxes, and I do give money to the candidate I want (I gave a lot to Romney - still struggling over writing a check to McCain).
But, when it is all said and done, Obama wasn't choosing either way over some "virtuous ideal". He was politically posturing both times - saying and doing what he thinks it will take to win - the same as every other politician.
The big issue on campaign finance is that Obama has run his campaign as a new and better politician. Those who blindly accept Obama's flip flop on this are really ignoring his stated position and allowing him to become what they say they didn't like about other politicians. The cult of Obama is manifested each time his supporters and apologists accept his decisions of expediency.
Please note that the problem with his NEW position is not due simply to a sudden realization that the system is "broken". It is a fundamental shift from his "newer and better politician" shtick. And this NEW position is the continuation of a growing line of flip flops on major platforms that he espoused during the primary. Gun rights, NSA wire taps, late term abortions, Iraq, etc. Those who lie to themselves by pretending that he is "only doing what politicians do" is are being willfully blind. When those people attempt to convince others that his previous sanctimony (now read expediency) was proper but he needs to win for some greater good are spreading their personal deception. This change illustrates that Obama was never anything but a politician and should nullify any support by people who are honest with themselves.
Obama is the epitome of someone who speaks with a forked tongue and as such should be someone who members of the church view with great caution. The fact is that he isn't really doing much to camouflage his changed positions reveals his understanding of his sycophantic followers and his reliance on a slavish media.
One final point on the idea of lobbyists and PACs. The notion that campaigns should be free from such influences is to misunderstand the function of such groups and to simultaneously eschew support of any such groups. Lobbyists don't just represent big oil, big tobacco or big gay and lesbian interests. They represent important interests and millions of Americans who have very similar views as members of our faith. Our voices are amplified many times when a lobbyist advocates for issues we believe in such as Life, freedom of religion and other important issues. These lobbyists bring our important issues to the fore and help to assure that our elected officials are aware of the importance of the issue. Decrying this process assumes that lobbying is somehow bad or inappropriate. The fact is that if we elect the right people they will listen to the right lobbyists and more effectively stand up for the little guy who can't raise his voice above the din.
Post a Comment