Obama opts out of the Public Financing system for the General Election

[Cleverboy]

Just got this in my e-mail this morning:
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/bignews?source=20080619_PF_D1_G
Senator Barack Obama announced on Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html

Many are saying that this is a broken promise, but I remember reading exactly what was said, and it was NOT a promise. The Times chimed in on this point:
In fact, Mr. Obama stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in the public financing system. Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Mr. Obama has since said that he would only agree to such a deal if Mr. McCain agreed to curtail spending by the Republican Party and independent groups.

Is something being missed here? Was there an ACTUAL promise somewhere, or are we entering a new round of political spin? I think the 527's are going to have their way, and that McCain won't stop them. Obama has been out spoken about them, but recently, I noticed a PAC cropping up that seemed a bit difficult for him to distance himself from, given his aims.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-06-18-obama-evangelicals_N.htm?csp=34
Obama's campaign is also launching a grass-roots effort, tentatively called Joshua Generation, with plans to hold concerts and house meetings targeted at young evangelicals and Catholics.

Meanwhile, a new political action committee set to launch later this month, the Matthew 25 Network, plans to direct radio advertising and mailers to Christian communities while talking up Obama in the media. The group is not officially tied to the Obama campaign. I guess "talking up" isn't exactly advocacy or attack ads, but its a delicate dance.

~ CB

[és:]

It's a bit of a shame but if it's going to put him at a disadvantage he really had no choice.

The problem is with the system, not the candidate.

[mactastic]

Bad optics, but a sound decision. And McCain can't really attack to hard on this, lest it draw attention to his current problems with the FEC involving using his public funding as collateral for a loan, then denying he'd accepted public funds. Flip, meet flop. A net push for both campaigns.

Outside groups may try to use the issue, but it can't neatly be summed up in a 30-second sound bite, so I don't see this getting much traction.

And Obama can take his huge cash advantage and pummel McCain with it all election season all over the electoral map. The GOP is likely to be playing defense in a lot of states, and not having a whole lot left over for offense. Obama can spread the map quite a bit with his funding advantage. He could even force McCain to play defense in his home state.

[stevento]

The problem is with the system, not the candidate.

then why did he agree to public financing? public financing only yields $85 M, and restricts you to it which obama can easily raise in 60 days. the reason he's not taking it is because he can probably raise $285 M between now an november. let's not buy into his crap about the system being broken.

[mactastic]

then why did he agree to public financing? public financing only yields $85 M, and restricts you to it which obama can easily raise in 60 days. the reason he's not taking it is because he can probably raise $285 M between now an november. let's not buy into his crap about the system being broken.
Let's be honest here... Obama never "agree(d) to public financing". He said he would consider it under certain conditions and that his opponent would have to agree to them too.

[yg17]

So he "agreed" to public financing (aka, taxpayer money), determined he could raise more than that on his own, and decided to turn it down. What's so bad about that?

If you offer to give me a thousand dollars, no strings attached, and I agree to accept it, but later on, I decide that by doing some work, I can raise more than that myself, and tell you "I changed my mind, keep your money" does that make me a bad person?

[MacNut]

Public financing would have put them both even with funds? Would that mean that they can't use any donated money?

[PlaceofDis]

Public financing would have put them both even with funds? Would that mean that they can't use any donated money?

no McCain can still use the RNC money, which has alot more than the DNC.

[SMM]

then why did he agree to public financing? public financing only yields $85 M, and restricts you to it which obama can easily raise in 60 days. the reason he's not taking it is because he can probably raise $285 M between now an november. let's not buy into his crap about the system being broken.

He did not promise anything, and you are just spreading neo-con smear talking points. He raises money, $5, $10, $20 dollars at a time from the public. He takes nothing from special interest groups. You republican mind cannot deal with a man of integrity, because your side does not have one. The last ones were Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater. Your side is in deep doodoo.

[Rodimus Prime]

Just another example of why politions are less than human. they are all filthy liers who care about nothing else but having power.

[it5five]

Just another example of why politions are less than human. they are all filthy liers who care about nothing else but having power.

How and when did Obama lie?

[Rodimus Prime]

How and when did Obama lie?

blanket statement about politiions but Obama is very full of hot air and most of his "promises" are just talk.

He nothing more than a less than human that was created out of the scum known as politics.

[CorvusCamenarum]

How and when did Obama lie?

His new ad certainly seems a bit dodgy.

link (http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/06/obamas-latest-ad-promised-prince.html)

[KingYaba]

I'm not surprised. I, too, would take the money. :)

[Cleverboy]

His new ad certainly seems a bit dodgy.
link (http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/06/obamas-latest-ad-promised-prince.html)
It would be better to link to the ad, or at least a more journalistic review of it. I hate it when I read something, and the criticisms begin to have gaping problems with them.

The guy criticises Obama for saying his values are straight out of Kansas, by saying his mother didn't really share Kansas values (nevermind Obama was clearly referring to his grandparents). He criticises Obama saying that they didn't have "much money", by isolating a part of his life and noting where he went to school and lived. It's no where near "dodgy".

Obama's contention that he's forgoing public financing because the system is broken is "dodgy". He's doing it because he can raise more money without the limits. The TV ad is entirely on point. It's also an ad, so it plays up certain things and ignores others.

Steve Sailer sounds like a jerk. He implies Obama doesn't love his country, because his mother married "two foreigners". Wow. Marry a "foreigner" and have your children's "love of country" questioned? That how it works, really? How nice. :rolleyes:
"I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents." If he was blessed with such a strong family, why was his mother a "single mom?" Actually, his mother was married about 90% of the time up through his 18th birthday, assuming that you count her bigamous marriage to Barack Sr. as "being married."DICK HEAD.

~ CB

[killerrobot]

Whether or not Obama actually lied about only going to take public funds, he definitely made it sound as though we was going to. Not just once, but on several occasions.

I've got no problem with that. But what I do have a problem with is that he says the system is broken and that's why he's opting out. Well, wasn't it broken beforehand? He needed to just say he could raise more money for campaigning and that's it.

I'm pro Obama, there's no doubt in my mind that I'm voting for him, but this episode could be the one that begins to plant the seed of doubt for many Americans. I think he really needed to explain (or the news needed to) in depth the reasons why he made that decision and not just make a headline out of it.

[lord patton]

He did not promise anything, and you are just spreading neo-con smear talking points. He raises money, $5, $10, $20 dollars at a time from the public. He takes nothing from special interest groups. You republican mind cannot deal with a man of integrity, because your side does not have one. The last ones were Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater. Your side is in deep doodoo.

Neo-con smear talking points. There are no republicans with integrity. Obama takes nothing from "special interest groups" (whatever those are).

Dude, this isn't really a big enough deal to make yourself sound like such an ass.

Anyway, there's spin world and the real world, and in the real world, if you have the chance at a 300 million dollar fundraising advantage, you take it. If Obama didn't, he wouldn't be principled—he'd be a dipshit.

[it5five]

blanket statement about politiions but Obama is very full of hot air and most of his "promises" are just talk.

He nothing more than a less than human that was created out of the scum known as politics.

Okay, that didn't answer either of my questions. I asked you to show me ANY instance in which Obama promised to use public funding.

This is an impossible task, because he never promised. If he never promised, it is impossible to break a promise. No, Obama had said he would consider public financing if his Republican opponent would use public financing, and that they would have to talk about it with one another.

Doesn't sound like a promise to me, and it doesn't even sound committal to me.

So please, show me where he had promised doing such a thing.

[Rodimus Prime]

Okay, that didn't answer either of my questions. I asked you to show me ANY instance in which Obama promised to use public funding.

This is an impossible task, because he never promised. If he never promised, it is impossible to break a promise. No, Obama had said he would consider public financing if his Republican opponent would use public financing, and that they would have to talk about it with one another.

Doesn't sound like a promise to me, and it doesn't even sound committal to me.

So please, show me where he had promised doing such a thing.

yeah the more I hear his agrument is it was more how to raise campain funds. He never expect the Rep candidated to opt for it. He never planned on talking about it. He seemed to complete dismiss the idea saying nope bad idea forget this.

Promise was to talk about doing it. Which he clearly had no intention of doing.

He twist his words to make it sound like he is promising something yet really saying nothing at all.

[zap2]

blanket statement about politiions but Obama is very full of hot air and most of his "promises" are just talk.

He nothing more than a less than human that was created out of the scum known as politics.

well atleast you're using facts to back that statement up about Obama.

Oh and most of all, that is very helpful to fix the problems we have!

thanks for the great outlook!

[NC MacGuy]

yeah the more I hear his agrument is it was more how to raise campain funds. He never expect the Rep candidated to opt for it. He never planned on talking about it. He seemed to complete dismiss the idea saying nope bad idea forget this.

Promise was to talk about doing it. Which he clearly had no intention of doing.

He twist his words to make it sound like he is promising something yet really saying nothing at all.

I don't think he envisioned the $upport he'd be getting when the subject was broached. I think Obama will prove to be another of the same. A politician - period.
A politician promises for a vote, Democrat or Republican.

[solvs]

First of all, of course Obama is a politician. I don't know why anyone on either side thinks anything else. The difference is what he might do with his position of power, or in some cases, what he might not do. This though is a complete non-issue. When I first heard about it, I was disappointed, sure, but understood. Then, upon looking closer into it, I saw what most of the media wasn't telling us. That he didn't ever actually agree to it, though he did say yes on a form, but under the notes there was a lot more that isn't even being talked about that clearly laid out his position on the subject. That it was a "yes" with several caveats. That McCain didn't decide to abide by, even now after he suddenly is claiming he will.

And McCain can't really attack to hard on this, lest it draw attention to his current problems with the FEC involving using his public funding as collateral for a loan, then denying he'd accepted public funds. Flip, meet flop. A net push for both campaigns.
Not for lack of trying (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/200902.php). I notice that even though McCain is hitting Obama for this, trying to make it seem like Obama is the flip flopper on the issue, no one seems to want to mention the FEC thing that the DNC had to actually sue them to even investigate. McCain's flip, then flop, then flipping again, then flopping again. Illegally. But no one covers that, because Obama said yes on a form. Ignoring what was written underneath that yes. Liberal media for you.

Outside groups may try to use the issue, but it can't neatly be summed up in a 30-second sound bite, so I don't see this getting much traction.
Yeah, it turns out nobody really cares, but it was a nice try all the same.

His new ad certainly seems a bit dodgy.

link (http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/06/obamas-latest-ad-promised-prince.html)
Really? Did you actually read everything he wrote? Because it's pretty specious reasoning, and as noted above, some of it is downright disgusting.

Plenty of reasons to not like Obama, that was not it.

Whether or not Obama actually lied about only going to take public funds, he definitely made it sound as though we was going to. Not just once, but on several occasions.
Well, not really (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-to-break.html), it was actually more nuanced than that:

“I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as the way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and I‘m the only 2008 candidate to sponsor Senator Russ Feingold‘s bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to reserve 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 forego public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25283004/

But no, no one wants to talk about that part for some reason.

Author Of McCain-Feingold: Obama Smart To Opt Out Of Public Funds (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/19/author-of-mccain-feingold_n_108132.html)

[és:]

then why did he agree to public financing?

He didn't.

public financing only yields $85 M, and restricts you to it which obama can easily raise in 60 days. the reason he's not taking it is because he can probably raise $285 M between now an november. let's not buy into his crap about the system being broken.

More bilge from you. The system is completely undemocratic. Not that America is a democracy anyway.

[solvs]

Not that America is a democracy anyway.

We used to be. I thought. Wondering if anyone will read the above from Obama on the subject at the time. What he actually said. Or if this will be more like the Gore thread, where a 4% reduction in renewable energy equaled a 10% increase in regular energy somehow.

[és:]

We used to be. I thought. Wondering if anyone will read the above from Obama on the subject at the time. What he actually said. Or if this will be more like the Gore thread, where a 4% reduction in renewable energy equaled a 10% increase in regular energy somehow.

I was wondering that. I think it's a case of people just believing what they want to believe, even if they are well aware of the facts then their evident bias just makes them ignore it.

[Cleverboy]

I was wondering that. I think it's a case of people just believing what they want to believe, even if they are well aware of the facts then their evident bias just makes them ignore it. Well, the media is doing two things... recognizing that this is a possibly dooming blow to the current financing system that's broken, yet has been in place for decades... AND... that there is the appearance of an "about face". The right wing is calling Obama a "cypher" and subtley trying to sell the idea that he's an "empty suit" that can subtely change his message to match the public mood. Personally, I think its amazing the degree of hypocrisy, considering McCain's public financing troubles (I'm in, no... I'm out! Wait, I only used the money as collateral. You can't judge me!)

~ CB

[MacNut]

Isn't this really a play out of Bush's playbook? Make so much money that your opponent doesn't have a chance.

[Rodimus Prime]

I don't think he envisioned the $upport he'd be getting when the subject was broached. I think Obama will prove to be another of the same. A politician - period.
A politician promises for a vote, Democrat or Republican.

hence my reason I for thinking he is scum. A untrustworthy broken promises scumbag known as a politician. No wait sorry that is an insult to scumbags.

Politicians makes scumbags look good.

Sorry to all the scumbags out there. Did not mean to insult you by saying you are at the leave of a politician.

[Pittsax]

Isn't this really a play out of Bush's playbook? Make so much money that your opponent doesn't have a chance.
Not quite. Bush's playbook said to opt into "public financing" and let the 527s do the dirty work for you.

IMO, the public vs. private financing nomenclature is terribly misleading. Obama is getting a lot of money from the public, it's just not via the $3 a taxpayers that is assigned on their 1040s. If there is going to be a cap on donations (which is what "public" financing really is) it should be on a per donor basis, not on overall funds. Why punish a guy who can bring in millions via small donations? If McCain had access to this amount and type of donations he'd take them in a heartbeat, and he'd be stupid not to.

[Pittsax]

A untrustworthy broken promises scumbag known as a politician.
Repeat after me: HE DID NOT BREAK A PROMISE

He said, in a questionnaire, that he would opt into public financing if the Republican candidate did so because he is opposed to the influence of special interests with their large donations. He's opposed to lobbyist-financed campaigns, not publicly financed campaigns, which is really what his is.

McCain opted into public finance only AFTER Obama announced he was opting out. In fact it was such a knee-jerk reaction that he seemed to be waiting for it. And the only reason he even said yes to the public financing system is because he wouldn't be able to raise that amount on his own. It's not like he was FORCED to opt into the system. He only did so when he could turn around and rub Obama's nose in it.

It's almost funny...for years the Republicans had a huge fundraising lead on Democrats and laughed their way into office as their candidates pretended to rely only on the $3 a taxpayer while their 527 groups did crap like the Swiftboat ads with as much donor money as they wanted. But now that Obama has a fundraising edge, the right is suddenly all concerned about campaign finance reform. Never mind that moveon.org closed their 527 group because they were respecting Obama's wish to run a campaign based on individual donors.

[MacNut]

IMO both candidates should have the same amount of funds, lets say 50 million a piece. That is all they get, no fundraising or anything. Force them to spend it wisely, maybe then the attack ads would stop. And we might have a fair campaign.

I never understand why people would donate to a campaign, it is a waste of money, give that to someone that truly needs it not a campaign. Families are struggling to survive and we are giving 100's of millions to campaigns.

[NT1440]

i dont understand what the big deal is really, its not like hes getting money from big companies now or other special interest groups, as long as the money doesnt come places that will have influence over the campaign i dont care where it comes from.


Also, why is that certain news outlets (such as the fair and balanced fox news:rolleyes:) indicate a candidates success by how much money that makes, are we really that money driven in this country that wealth will determine our president?

[PlaceofDis]

IMO both candidates should have the same amount of funds, lets say 50 million a piece. That is all they get, no fundraising or anything. Force them to spend it wisely, maybe then the attack ads would stop. And we might have a fair campaign.

I never understand why people would donate to a campaign, it is a waste of money, give that to someone that truly needs it not a campaign. Families are struggling to survive and we are giving 100's of millions to campaigns.

see thats part of the problem. if you limit their spending there is nothing to stop the 3rd parties from spending money on their candidate of choice. which is why obama has opted out of the public financing and limiting himself. the RNC has a lot more money than the DNC, thus hopefully this fundraising can allow a bit more parity on both sides.

[solvs]

For those who still think he "broke a promise", again, read my quote from what he actually wrote under the "yes". There were caveats he clearly laid out. Since then, he has been raising money via small donations and has not only refused to take lobbyist money, but asked the rest of the Dems to do so as well. Unlike McCain, who claims to be powerless (weird the MSM didn't pick up on that, had it been Obama saying that, they might have called him weak or something) he actually is telling 527s not to go on the attack. And unlike McCain, his position hasn't really changed.

McCain's meanwhile IS all over the place, flip flopping several times, yet the media is almost silent on that (Media give McCain a pass while pouncing on Obama) for some reason.

[mactastic]

If McCain needs money that badly, I'm sure he can just ask Mr. Keating to float him a loan...

[hulugu]

i dont understand what the big deal is really, its not like hes getting money from big companies now or other special interest groups, as long as the money doesnt come places that will have influence over the campaign i dont care where it comes from.


Also, why is that certain news outlets (such as the fair and balanced fox news:rolleyes:) indicate a candidates success by how much money that makes, are we really that money driven in this country that wealth will determine our president?

Horse race mentality. The process is complex and hard to describe in short bursts of infotainment, so the press retreats to USA Today-like graphics and easy to digest numbers.

IMO both candidates should have the same amount of funds, lets say 50 million a piece. That is all they get, no fundraising or anything. Force them to spend it wisely, maybe then the attack ads would stop. And we might have a fair campaign.

I never understand why people would donate to a campaign, it is a waste of money, give that to someone that truly needs it not a campaign. Families are struggling to survive and we are giving 100's of millions to campaigns.

Pittsax answers this question well, but I think it's worth reiterating, the 527s (Swift Boaters) will carry a political message outside of the usual fund-raising. If you restrict 527s, they will sue under "freedom of speech" arguments. And, this ignores the "whisper" campaigns of Rove and his cronies.

Not quite. Bush's playbook said to opt into "public financing" and let the 527s do the dirty work for you.

IMO, the public vs. private financing nomenclature is terribly misleading. Obama is getting a lot of money from the public, it's just not via the $3 a taxpayers that is assigned on their 1040s. If there is going to be a cap on donations (which is what "public" financing really is) it should be on a per donor basis, not on overall funds. Why punish a guy who can bring in millions via small donations? If McCain had access to this amount and type of donations he'd take them in a heartbeat, and he'd be stupid not to.

[solvs]

If McCain needs money that badly, I'm sure he can just ask Mr. Keating to float him a loan...
He doesn't need it anymore. He did, but then he didn't. Even though it was illegal to opt in, then get a loan using it as collateral, then go out without getting approval. Then go back in now he does because Obama doesn't. After Obama said he wouldn't, as if it was his idea all along and he wasn't being sued by the DNC to have files charges that the FEC won't otherwise.

But don't worry, those 527s he can't do anything about, despite being a strong and respected leader, can take up the slack.

[hulugu]

If McCain needs money that badly, I'm sure he can just ask Mr. Keating to float him a loan...

Oh, snap. ;)

[stevento]

John McCain web ad: it's "change that works for him: breaking his word"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mQ_eCGbdg0&feature=user

[solvs]

John McCain web ad: it's "change that works for him: breaking his word"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mQ_eCGbdg0&feature=user

Are you actually citing a McCain ad as some kind of proof?