Subscribe by RSS
After a bit of waffling over the issue and some statements that Obama would accept public financing if his GOP opponent would, his campaign has now officially rejected public financing funds of about $84 million.
Video report from ABC News:
Another report from the Associated Press:
Bit of a reversal, yes indeed. I don’t think many will hold it against him unless McCain tries to make it a “flip-flopping” issue.
McCain will raise nowhere near the amount Obama will be able to rake in.
(2 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Loading ...
Public financing would have been fine if Obama could have reasonably expected McCain and the scumbags at the RNC to play by the rules. It is already clear that McCain’s campaign will take every opportunity to subvert the purpose of public financing rules. Obama, on the other hand, has pledged not to take money from lobbyists and other “soft money” donors. I find it refreshing for once that the people actually have some control over the fundraising process, unlike in other years where each candidate was given a set amount and had to sell their souls to corporate special interests to raise the remainder. I think that Obama has stumbled on a much better solution to the issue of campaign finance reform than public financing ever thought of being. All public financing has accomplished is producing yet another oligarchic wealth qualification for inclusion in the American political machine. Obama has subverted this, and I like him all the more for it!
Josh, that’s the best spin on it I’ve seen, congratulations. But I kinda like this one, too:
“And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.
And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.”
http://www.nytimes.com/20.....ks.html?hp
“The Two Obamas”
Babs, it’s clearly the Republicans that dealt the “death-blow” to campaign finance reform. This whole “public financing” schpiel is garbage. Public financing just means that Candidates have to cater to big business via their respective national committees. The Republicans have created an entire system based on subverting and manipulating the controls of “finance-reforms” to their advantage. The Clintons and the DNC were also very guilty of this in the 90’s. Obama cannot possibly play within this rulebook (if you want to call it that) and maintain his pledge not to take special interest money. With McCain poised to take any special interest money he can get his hands on (and “whoring” himself out in every way possible, I’m sure, when the cameras aren’t allowed in), Obama could never hope to compete. These fundraising schemes are especially tartuff of McCain, in my opinion, because he tries to come across as being so against special interests. In reality, he’s nothing but another bought-and-sold sheister on the payroll of corporate America.
Well, Josh, I see you are very defensive about this. As far as the issue of public financing goes, per say, I could care less. It’s the flip that bothers me. It’s the not keeping his word when he CHAMPIONED public financing. It’s the wondering what comes next, because it seems to be becoming a pattern. I don’t support Obama, but if by some chance he becomes our next president, I’m not very happy with him right now.
Oh, but to say Obama could never hope to compete - come on, Josh. Hasn’t it been Obama who has waved his contribution figures in every face in America for months now as if it were a flag of victory? As if to say I’m winning because I got more money, look at me, I’m the best. It’s a little late to paint himself the underdog now.
Not too big of a surprise really. It’s nothing short of stupidity to pass up that great of a funding edge because of a policy that has more loopholes than the American litigation system. Ever since this issue came up a few months ago, Obama knew he had to do it even if he was labeled as a flip-flopper.
A lot of what Obama has done so far hasn’t went down well with me, but I can find little that is worthy of condemnation here. Public financing of campaigns only really affects the candidates and not the general public, so the candidates can shift their stances all they want on it for all I care. I don’t like to deal in theoreticals, but I don’t have the slightest reservation in saying that if Obama’s and McCain’s situations were interchanged, McCain would have done the same.
Obama has been flipflopping, but so far all of it that I know of pertains to non issues, unlike McCain’s recent switch on the topic of offshore oil drilling. This story, his church background, his family and his religious claims- all of these are minutely troubling as reflections of his character, but they are all ultimately moot.
It seems like there was some sort of game playing going on between the two candidates. Why else did McCain wait until that same day, but later in the afternoon, to declare that he would be pursuing public financing himself?
Both candidates had been working toward their respective means of financing for a while now. A month or so back on his Fox news interview, Obama named his terms and concerns for pursuing public financing, but said he was very interested in it if it could be pursued within those terms.
Now he’s declined on the basis that he can’t get things hammered out his way, and he doesn’t want to play ball the way things are set up. So it seems like there could have been some negotiation for this to happen if they both wanted it to happen. But I never heard or read much about this in the press. I’m sure if McCain had tried to negotiate in a way that would assuage these concerns and found Obama still unwilling, he’d be mentioning that now. He’d have every reason to call Obama out on his BS if he was being completely insincere in his past statements.
So I can only guess that they just couldn’t come to a mutually agreeable way for this to happen. Disappointing, but not really blameworthy.
Actually, IndiMinded, McCain did call him out months ago when Obama first started to hedge on his written pledge. I’ll see if I can pull those bookmarks over the weekend for you. There’s a letter from McCain directly to Obama concerning the matter, and it didn’t mince words. I’ll see if I can find it.
I’ve read the letter, it was a pretty strongly worded rebuttal, and at the time I certainly felt Obama deserved it. But that was months ago. When Obama was interviewed by Fox news recently, by that time everyone more or less took for granted that he was going to opt out of public financing - but he sort of came out of the blue and said he would be VERY interested in public financing, and basically voiced the concerns he would want be addressed in any agreement if he were to accept public financing.
If McCain had heard these statements and given Obama a call to say “You’re still interested in public financing? Great, lets figure something out!” only to discover that Obama was being entirely insincere in his sentiments, well I figure McCain would be talking about that now. So I’m guessing McCain wasn’t really interested in coming to a compromise agreement either. But of course it’s all speculation…
Who really cares where any politicians gets funding from? If they have good ideas that will help our country, why does it matter who funds them?
The real question is why do we still have an Electoral College in each state? This was set up when the common person had little to no education. Why has the common person’s vote been all but discarded? If I am a Dem. in a major “RED” state, then my vote is useless and if I am a Republican in a “BLUE” state, then my vote is also all but useless. It is time to get rid of this old system and let Americans decided who the president is gunna be! I’m gunna move to Florida so my vote might actually matter!
Josh, so everything the republicans have done with financing so far is wrong. Is this because for the first time John Sidney McCain and the RNC raised more money than Barack Hussein Obama did?
Well, taking money from corporate lobby groups via the RNC isn’t neccessarily wrong, per se, at least not legally wrong. Ethically, it’s a grey area. My only point was that Obama couldn’t have competed with McCain’s special interest dollars unless he violated his promise not to take money from such groups (notice Obama directed Moveon.org to discontinue their 527 activities). It’s really a catch-22, and a matter of which “promise” is more important. In this case, I’d say it’s more important that he keeps his promise not to take special-interest money.
I think it’s a bad deal for any politician to game the system in that way, and oh have they all done it. All this system does is takes gives 85 million dollars to each candidate, which isn’t even nearly enough to run a campaign these days, not with so many bases to cover. What ends up happening is that the voters themselves get forced out of the way for the candidates to go after contributions from large corporations and groups that can afford to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars (Enron, Halliburton, as well as a number of liberal donors during the Clinton years) to the campaign. Is this the kind of control you want to have over your government?
“(notice Obama directed Moveon.org to discontinue their 527 activities).”
Ok, Josh, now you’ve confused me. I understood it was against the law, actually, for a candidate to even talk to a 527 group, much less “direct” them. Was I told wrong?? And if so, when did Obama “direct” them? Because the little “you can’t have Alex” ad was entertaining, I didn’t realize it had been pulled.
He didn’t specifically direct or speak with moveon.org, but according to cnn: “The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has said he does not want ‘527s’ and outside, independent groups advertising on his behalf in the general election.” And in support of that, moveon.org decided to shut down their 527s, I think the announced it the day after he said that, though I wouldn’t swear to it.
I’m not sure if it’s immediate, the “you can’t have alex” ad might not have been pulled yet. The sooner the better, I say.
You are correct, Babs, but Moveon.org itself isn’t a 527 group. Moveon had control over some 527 activities, and they agreed to stop these fundraising activities with some prodding from Obama. I don’t think that it will affect the ads they run (I won’t get into what I think of the “marketing” tactics use by Moveon), but Obama will not be recieving funds from their 527 fundraisers. Obama has also insisted that the DNC follow his lead of not taking money from lobbyist groups.
I actually applaud Obama for rejecting public campaign financing. Now Why can’t he get it through his head that these are good capitalist principals. This is how the country should be run.
CG, I might applaud it if he had done it straight up. He didn’t, though. And the way he did do it hit his credibility for a lot of people. I’ve met Obama supporters who have dropped their support of him this week on this issue alone and signed up on the McCain site. Whether we like it or not, a majority of voters base their choice on crediblity and honesty, and people feel he has been very deceptive in this instance. Just saying what I’m hearing, don’t shoot the messenger.
Babs
Have those same supporters noticed how McCain was the first person to back peddle on the public Financing issue? 9haha McCain Feingold bill)
After opting into it he tried to get out of it until DNC filed the claim. So he announced he would stay in but has been breaking the rules he is supposed to be bound by.
So Obama would be opting into a system which would bound him by rules that his opponent has been completely ignoring. So in order to be competitive he would have to do the same thing
McCain is doing.
Dreadsen, there’s a little controversy over what you say, and how much of it is fact based as opposed to DNC based, but in this instance it’s irrelevant. You can’t sling mud at McCain to justify Obama’s actions. If there’s mud on McCain’s side, so be it. It doesn’t neutralize Obama’s to anyone.
And this really looks like it’s not such a small thing as just another flip flop. Do I care about Public Financing in general? No, I don’t. As I said, this seems to be more about what is perceived as a bait and switch by Obama. I could paste a ton of emails from former Obama supporters here, but I’m not going to stir this pot like that. I will give you this, though:
http://youtube.com/watch?.....ature=user
It echos the sentiments of many, it would seem.
Actually Babs, it is relevant because Obama’s flip flop is not that he said he would opt into public financing and then did not, but that he said that if his republican rival opted into public financing than he would do the same, and now he appears not to be abiding by that.
BUT if his republican rival really isn’t participating in the rules and regulations of the public financing system, then that’s sort of an in between scenario. Obama never said what he would do if he rival opted into public financing but didn’t abide by the rules.
I’m not saying that this is how the situation is, because it’s not something I’m particularly well informed on - I’m just saying that if true, it’s absolutely relevant to justifying Obama’s actions.
IndiMinded, in light of the flack that Obama is getting over having made this reversal, don’t you think that if he could pinned that decision on some wrong doing by McCain he would have? But he didn’t. What does that tell you?
Just to throw this in about any allegations against McCain, here’s the statement issued by the RNC on Tuesday:
WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross released the following statement today:
“As expected, the DNC today filed the same frivolous lawsuit that was thrown out of court over a month ago. It appears the DNC’s legal strategy mirrors its party’s governing strategy: keep doing the same thing and hope for different results. The law states that a candidate must actually receive public funds to be subject to the primary campaign spending limit. The McCain campaign never received any primary matching funds, and the campaign’s lending bank has made clear that no entitlements to public funds were used as collateral to secure any loan. The DNC should spend more time explaining why its candidate broke his word to the American people on public financing and less time on reckless lawsuits. We are confident the FEC will throw this meritless complaint out and that the Court will recognize it as a waste of judicial resources.â€
Babs
The reason why they keep throwing the lawsuit out is because the court says this in in the FEC jurisdiction FIRST. You have to file with the FEC then wait 120 days. After that THEN you can file in Federal Court.But they can’t get a decision from the FEC because there wasn’t enough members to vote.
So no action can be taken on him as long as there are not enough members to make the FEC fully functional. So they are probably going to the Federal Court over and over again stating this case.
This is from May
“ABC News’ Tahman Bradley reports: A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Democratic Party that tried to prevent presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, from opting out of the public financing system. The Democratic National Committee had asked that the court force the Federal Election Commission to take action against McCain, saying he had already made use of the program by securing a bank loan on the promise of public money.”
“Judge John Bates wrote in a five-page decision that the case is the FEC’s to decide, and even though the commission has been unable to obtain a quorum for several months, the matter still remains in their jurisdiction. Federal law requires a party to file a complaint with the FEC and then wait 120 days before filing suit, Bates, an appointee of President Bush, pointed out in his ruling. The DNC complaint, which asks for investigation of a bank loan agreement the McCain campaign entered into with Fidelity and Trust Bank of Bethesda, was filed in April. Before the FEC’s quorum troubles, the panel asked the McCain campaign to explain the agreement.
Republican National Committee chief counsel Sean Cairncross applauded the decision in a statement. “The Court’s order confirmed what the McCain campaign said at the time the suit was filed; the DNC lawsuit was nothing but a frivolous publicity stunt.”
The McCain campaign did not offer comment.
McCain requested and received approval for public financing after his fundraising slowed last summer. When the campaign got back on track early this year, McCain wrote the FEC saying he was no longer interested in public money. Candidates who opt into the public financing system must adhere to spending limits, and such limits would put McCain at a big disadvantage if the Democratic presidential nominee does not use public money in the fall. ”
“The DNC doesn’t think the matter is over. “Unless there is a serious and timely investigation under way by the FEC, we will be back in court in the end of June to hold McCain accountable for breaking the law,” spokeswoman Stacie Paxton said.”
Now filing with the FEC was pointless at the time because they didn’t have enough members to make a decision.
And this story from Fox news about the Election commission dead lock.
http://www.foxnews.com/st.....56,00.html
” Also pending is action on McCain’s decision to bypass public matching funds during the primary. Mason had instructed McCain that he needed the approval of the commission before withdrawing. Without a quorum, the FEC was unable to act.”
So it is on the table. Their hands are just tied.
Maybe they are talking about the Lawsuit being frivolous because it has to go to the FEC first instead of Federal Court.
Or maybe they’re talking about it being frivilous because it is. People seem to be confusing public financing for the primaries and public financing for the general, they’re two different things. McCain hasn’t flip flopped on public financing for the general, he agreed to it in writing just like Obama did. This suit involves an accusation over primary funds, not the general funding that Obama flip flopped over.
And as I said before, what I’m getting feedback on is not a backlash for the funding, but for his actions. Here’s one example from an email I got:
“I am a very strong Obama supporter - or at least I was for the entirety of his campaign, up until this morning. I should clarify - I’m not taking the position that McCain isn’t a scumbag. I was just under the impression, up until now, that Obama wasn’t - apparently I was wrong. I do not oppose his refusal to use public funds - I do not have a strong stance on whether or not candidates should use the public funding system…..I do have a problem with the fact that he signed a document promising to do X, and then announcing today that X would be politically inconvenient, so he’s not going to do it.
I thought he stood for the opposite of that. It’s the dishonesty, not the issue, that I have a problem with, because 90% of my support for Obama was because I valued his integrity that few other politicians seemed to have.”
This is just one of many emails I’ve fielded over the subject over the last week, but I think he made the case for all of them well, so I used his. As I said, don’t shoot the messenger, I’m just trying to show you that it’s not the public funding issue, it’s the reversal that has people upset. You know I’ve said for months how much integrity and honesty plays more of a part to many people than the actual issues do.
Babs
Didn’t McCain secure his name on primary Ballots across the country by agreeing to public financing?
So is this a loop hole to get on primary ballots? Sign an agreement to public funding then afterwards opt out?
And does it matter which one flip flopped on primary or general election?
Both of them flip flopped. But only one of them is being exploited in the news.
One didn’t keep their word for the Primary and one didn’t keep their word for the General Election.
From the Nation-
” Media pundits, spurred on by the McCain campaign, went apoplectic last week over Barack Obama’s decision not to seek public funding for the general election.
ADVERTISEMENT
Yet McCain’s own flip-flop on public financing in the GOP primary has been largely buried or ignored in media coverage, even though it is far more serious–including potentially legally–than Obama’s symbolic “broken pledge.”
On two occasions, in November 2007 and December 2007, the McCain campaign received favorable loans from a Bethesda bank, totaling $4 million, by promising to use federal matching funds as collateral. Accepting public funding in the primary would’ve given the cash strapped McCain campaign an infusion of money but limited how much it could spend until the GOP convention in early September. Instead, after winning the New Hampshire primary, McCain opted against seeking public funding, realizing he could raise enough money on his own to sustain the campaign. It was certainly a politically expedient flip-flop. The question now is: are there legal ramifications?
The DNC has asked the Federal Elections Commission, which has been dormant for months, to investigate McCain’s reversal to see whether he’s violating campaign finance law. The lawsuit is now before the US District Court in Washington. According to the DNC’s statement:
In order to receive matching funds, John McCain signed a binding agreement with the FEC to accept spending limits and to abide by the conditions of receiving those funds. The FEC requires that any request to withdraw from the agreement must be granted by the FEC. FEC Chairman David Mason made this clear in a letter to McCain advising him that the law requires the FEC to approve his request to withdraw from his contract - a move McCain ignored and cost Mason his job.
According to past Commission rulings, the McCain campaign would not be allowed to withdraw from matching funds because it already violated a key condition for being let out of the program - pledging matching funds as collateral for a private loan.
After writing the letter to McCain, Mason was not re-appointed to the FEC by President Bush. Said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer: “The only apparent reason for President Bush to drop Commissioner David Mason at this stage, an FEC candidate he had twice proposed for the Commission, is to prevent him from casting an adverse vote against Senator McCain.”
Five new members of the FEC were approved by the Senate yesterday.
Also yesterday, at a member with reporters in Washington, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe brandished a document showing that McCain pledged to seek public funding in the GOP primary when he applied to get on state ballots.
“John McCain signed his name, ‘John McCain,’” Plouffe said, according to the Politico’s Ben Smith. “He got on the ballot attesting he would be in the primary system.” Now Plouffe says, “McCain is spending tens of millions of dollars, we believe, unlawfully.”
The McCain campaign continues to attack Obama for opting out of public financing in the general, releasing a web ad on the topic this week. Yet the McCain campaign shouldn’t get too cocky, given McCain’s own reversals in this area, and his broader abandonment of campaign-finance reform. “They’re out there throwing stones in glass houses on this,” Plouffe says.
When will the media outlets and reform experts who slammed Obama for his alleged hypocrisy start scrutinizing McCain?”