Obama-McCain: Public financing

[beefncheddar]

MSNBC: Obama opts out of public funding


Newsweek blog: Obama's Public-Financing Acrobatics

The questionnaire

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 John McCain (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.

Big deal or not?
Is there anyway to discuss this without flame-retardent suits?

 

[Flying Headbutt]

I know the GOP will try really, really, really hard to make it an issue. But I doubt it'll float very far after a few days.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

I know the GOP will try really, really, really hard to make it an issue. But I doubt it'll float very far after a few days.

The GOP, the founding fathers of "the best government money can buy", complaining about being outspent. That'll be rich.

 

[beefncheddar]

The GOP, the founding fathers of "the best government money can buy", complaining about being outspent. That'll be rich.

As best I can tell, that's not even remotely close to the argument.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

The GOP, the founding fathers of "the best government money can buy", complaining about being outspent. That'll be rich.

As best I can tell, that's not even remotely close to the argument.

No, but it'll be a big part of the substance behind it. They won't mention it, but it will.

 

[PeteyPirate]

It's true that Obama is going against his previous statements, and he will have to deal with that specific criticism. But the tens of thousands of people who built up his war chest with small donations (like me) want that money to be used to give him a competitive advantage. It's an overall net gain for him.

 

[The Big Ragu]

It isn't something that will resonate very far, because people don't care, but he is going to get hammered with it. And rightly so. He was saying one thing, now he is doing something different. That makes it fair fodder. I can't blame him, based on his fundraising ability, but he screwed up. Majorly. When he was still an underdog and didn't realize he would be able to harness the power of small donors and be the fundraising juggernaut he has turned into, he probably thought that the fundraising playing field would be equal if he made it to a general election, and he figured he could use it as an issue to make himself seem like he had more integrity than other candidates -- he was going to be the campaign finance reform guy and paint his opponents as pigs feeding at the PAC trough. Now that he knows he can rake in way more money than McCain, he has lost his religion. It's particularly ugly for him, because McCain was the one who ended up getting the Republican nomination, and McCain was the other guy playing that same game, except it is now beneficial for McCain to hold true to his word. So you have two guys who made a pledge -- the only two, I believe, out of all the candidates who started out running -- and you have the contrast now of one who is staying true to his word and one who isn't.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

The GOP, the founding fathers of "the best government money can buy", complaining about being outspent. That'll be rich.

As best I can tell, that's not even remotely close to the argument.

Didn't say it was!

;D

 

[Dickens Cider]

As far as I can tell, Obama tried to broker a deal with McCain. But he wanted McCain to police the 527 activity, and McCain refused. What good is public financing if you can get a bunch of 527s to run the attack ads you can't afford?

Unfortunately, while Obama's argument is nuanced and reasonable to an intelligent person, all you'll hear from the GOP is "Barack Obama broke his promise to the American people."

But fortunately, Ragu is right. People likely aren't going to care about this. There's bigger fish to fry right now.

 

[Human_Paraquat]

Obama won't accept public financing

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/19/obama.public.financing/index.html

This seems like a pretty shrewd political move (for once) from the Democrats.

Question: if Obama once said he'd accept public funding, but then raised so much money that he didn't need to, do you consider that a broken promise?

 

[andyouare?]

Obama would be an idiot to accept public financing.

Oh you mean the funds to staff volunteers in all 50 states and the funds that give me huge advantage in terms of campaign infrastructure? Yeah, I'll give all of that up.

He'll take a hit. And he should. But there is absolutely no way any sane person would pass up that much dough.

 

[Lugnuts]

What complicates the issue is McCain using the promise of public funds as collateral on a loan he needed to keep him from going belly up. He then didn't take the public funds.

It's probably a violation of election law, and I believe there's a lawsuit pending.

As for Obama, I hope he did try to broker a deal with McCain. If not, it's bull****. And I sure as hell hope Obama isn't doing this to help Hillary pay off her debt.

 

[zeke12]

He's not. His spokesman said today they sat down to try and do a deal, but McCain wanted the issue.

So he gets the issue and Obama gets his money.

They made the right call.

 

[spinning27]

Let the Republicans hammer a Democrat for NOT taking the public's money. That'll really resonate.

 

[Dickens Cider]

And here it is:

“He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people.” -- John McCain

 

[spinning27]

And here it is:

“He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people.” -- John McCain

Losing argument for McCain. Here's how the American public sees it:

Obama: Not taking federal money to run for president.

McCain: Taking federal money to run for president.

 

[PeteyPirate]

Exactly. Obama is taking public money that the public willingly donated for the purpose of helping his election. It's a flip-flop, but not one that will hurt him overall.

 

[deskslave]

As long as he reiterates several times that his is not a campaign funded by big-money donors, he'll be fine. Ideally, he'll find someone who gave him 50 bucks, then got 10 of her friends to chip in 50 bucks, and he can bring her on stage and talk about something tangible he spent the 550 on.

 

[The Big Ragu]

This can hurt Obama.

Campaign finance reform is a stupid issue. They did it with the McCain-Feingold legislation, and it paved the way for 527s. You can't stop people from finding a way to spend their money to support a candidate if they want. It's like pissing into the wind, and also, why get into the business of telling people what they can do with their money anyhow?

What hurts Obama is that the early seeds are taking root of him being painted as a guy who said one thing to win the primaries and now is saying the opposite in the general election. It's how you end up being the "flip flopper." Every candidate does this. They have to get the nomination by appealing to zealots of some sort, but in the general election, they need to be bland to appeal to the majority. It's why there isn't a big difference in what candidates actually do or stand for, except in meaningless rhetoric.

Just today, they have Obama saying he would curb fundraising and take public money if his opponent did, and now not staying true to his pledge, and they also hit him on NAFTA, with him now saying his rhetoric during the primaries was overheated and amplified.

Obama was hurt by the primary being drawn out -- he had to be bold with his rhetoric to differentiate himself. He might pay for that now, as he tries to tone down the rhetoric to appeal to the unwashed masses. McCain has always been less specific--he was almost calculated about not doing anything too bold that could come back and bite him. And because he wrapped things up more quickly, he wasn't forced to say anything as extreme that can be used to paint him as the guy who will say anything when he backs off it now.

This could be the makings of a trend that hurts Obama.

 

[PeteyPirate]

This can hurt Obama.

Campaign finance reform is a stupid issue. They did it with the McCain-Feingold legislation, and it paved the way for 527s. You can't stop people from finding a way to spend their money to support a candidate if they want. It's like pissing into the wind, and also, why get into the business of telling people what they can do with their money anyhow?

What hurts Obama is that the early seeds are taking root of him being painted as a guy who said one thing to win the primaries and now is saying the opposite in the general election. It's how you end up being the "flip flopper." Every candidate does this. They have to get the nomination by appealing to zealots of some sort, but in the general election, they need to be bland to appeal to the majority. It's why there isn't a big difference in what candidates actually do or stand for, except in meaningless rhetoric.

Just today, they have Obama saying he would curb fundraising and take public money if his opponent did, and now not staying true to his pledge, and they also hit him on NAFTA, with him now saying his rhetoric during the primaries was overheated and amplified.

Obama was hurt by the primary being drawn out -- he had to be bold with his rhetoric to differentiate himself. He might pay for that now, as he tries to tone down the rhetoric to appeal to the unwashed masses. McCain has always been less specific--he was almost calculated about not doing anything too bold that could come back and bite him. And because he wrapped things up more quickly, he wasn't forced to say anything as extreme that can be used to paint him as the guy who will say anything when he backs off it now.

This could be the makings of a trend that hurts Obama.

How bad is it going to hurt McCain? (tax cuts, offshore drilling in Florida, timeline for withdrawal, etc.)