Obama Opts Out Of Public Financing, Reformers Back Decision
On Thursday, Sen. Barack Obama announced that he was opting out of the public financing system, in the process forgoing "more than $80 million in public funds" for the more bountiful loot that could await him later.
As a result, Obama will become the first modern presidential candidate to run a race solely on the back of private funds. The move risks sullying his reformist credentials; Obama had promised last year to try to reach a deal with the GOP nominee to accept public financing. His decision to forgo public funds -- which he said came after a refusal to compromise by McCain campaign officials -- was quickly lambasted by his Republican opponent.
"Today, Barack Obama has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama," said the Arizona Republican's spokesman Brian Rogers. "The true test of a candidate for President is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people. Barack Obama has failed that test today."
And yet, perhaps not surprisingly, Obama's decision to opt-out of public funds is not being perceived as a slap in the face by some in the good-government and Democratic communities. Rather, it is being viewed as a move of necessity, driven in part by an acknowledgment that forgoing an obvious financial advantage would be electoral suicide, as well as the belief that Obama's current fundraising apparatus is built, in a way, like a public financing system (with a million or so small donors).
"We have long maintained that presidential candidates would make a decision to opt in or out of the presidential system not on what they thought about public financing but what put them in a position to win in November," said David Donnelly of Campaign Money Watch. "That's why we find Sen. Obama's decision to forgo public financing for the general election regrettable but understandable in light of the tens of millions of dollars that will be raised and spent outside the system attacking him. The real test is whether a candidate has pledged to make passage of public financing a priority if elected, and we intend to hold Sen. Obama accountable to his pledge to do so."
Indeed, for weeks now, there has been an ends-justify-the-means attitude toward the possibility that Obama would forgo public funds. His promise to reform campaign finance is concrete and laudable, the logic goes, but if he doesn't have the cash to beat McCain and, more significantly, the Republican National Committee, his policies will never be implemented.
"We've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations," said Obama, who has already raked in more than $250 million dollars for his campaign.
In an interview with The Huffington Post several weeks ago, Tad Devine, who was a chief political consultant to Al Gore and an adviser to John Kerry, made the argument that, specifically for Obama, a strategy based around private funding was the best to pursue.
"The fact that new states could be put in place makes perfect sense in this election," said Devine. "I think that there is some infrastructure even if it is minimal is a benefit for anyone who pursues that strategy, And the way to do it likely and I wish we did it in the Kerry campaign is to stay outside of public funding, amass a resource advantage bigger than your opponent and put new states in play. The way to win is to target the states that not only you can win, but forcing your opponent to defend...
"If, ideally, in 2004 we had pursued the best option and not have taken public funding and raised the money we could have raised, which was a couple hundred million dollars and not the 87 million, it would have changed thing dramatically. We would have immediately started advertising in Colorado in the summer, we would have advertised more in Nevada, we might have looked at Virginia to force them to defend it... I think a resource advantage is perhaps the biggest single advantage in politics."
+++
Obama's message to supporters about his decision to opt out of public financing:
+++
Pretty much every reform group has now weighed in on Obama's decision, and their reactions span from "we understand," to "we're disappointed."
Public Campaign Action Fund:
"With his decision, Sen. Obama now has a special obligation to make passage of comprehensive public financing of all federal elections a priority if elected. His decision today is not one that furthers reform in the short run, but his actions as president, should he win, could end the cash-and-carry system of paying for campaigns."
Democracy 21:
"Senator Obama's decision to opt out of the general election public financing system makes it all the more important for Senator Obama to personally make clear to the public in no uncertain terms that if he is elected, one of the early priorities for his Administration will be enacting legislation to repair the presidential public financing system."
Public Citizen:
"This presidential election is going to set all-time records for spending. Public Citizen can only hope that, despite Sen. Obama's decision, he will remain disgusted with private interests buying our White House and that after the campaign, he will lead the charge for a system that removes special interest money from politics."
Common Cause:
"Common Cause is hopeful that those reform-minded steps are indicative of the kind of campaign finance changes Sen. Obama would champion if he is elected President."
Brennan Center for Justice:
"Obama's decision calls attention to the need to repair the Presidential funding system and to extend public funding to Congressional candidates. Both Senator Obama and McCain have advocated reform; the next President should fix the presidential system and establish a voluntary Congressional public funding program that works to boost voter's voices."
Loading comments…
First Posted: 06-19-08 09:22 AM | Updated: 06-27-08 05:12 AM