I am of the school of thought that what we are currently doing is public finance. The campaign is being funded by the public. Whatever McCain is talking about is taxpayer finance. I do not want to see my tax dollars or contributions being spent on a campaign. There are other things that money can do. I think that a politician's ability to raise money directly from the public should be an indicator of his or her appeal and whether they should even run for office. That's my word! We are already financing this campaign through public donations!

The big issue here is that John McCain, the so-called rebel, has embraced the Republican Party big-time by creating a joint fundraising vehicle. The Republican Party has a bigger warchest, and appears far more able than the Democratic Party to raise big funds (up to $28,500 per person), enabling public financing supporter John McCain to eat his public financing cake and have lots more cake left over, by taking lots of soft money, which he used to be against. McCain is the bigger hypocrite here.

Obama's argument is somewhat disingenuous - he's also taken a lot of larger donations. But he is right that public financing is largely about lessening the influence of wealthy donors. I don't think he should be changing the rules in the middle of the game, but if he feels he has to, due to the Republican Party fundraising ability, he should set a strict limit on contributions he will accept.

From Jim Geraghty at "The Campaign Spot":
****************

There's a Word for Obama's 'Parallel Public Financing System': Private.

Back in February, the Washington Post said that Barack Obama was starting to "waffle" on public financing, which he had pledged to take if the Republican candidate did so as well. McCain said he was game, but because his fundraising had been going so well, Obama suggested he was having second thoughts.

Well, Obama's not waffling anymore. Now he's more or less coming out and saying that his public pledges meant nothing.

The Post said his previous commitment was "unequivocal."

Now he says, "We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."

Obama had the audacity to announce his breaking of his public financing pledge before a $2,300 per head fundraising dinner. Really, when are the members of the press going to call horsepuckey on this?

By a "parallel public financing system," Obama means that he is getting a lot of money from private donors. If this is "public", then every other candidate who has ever run for office has used a "parallel public financing system" too.


Come on, Senator. Don't tell me words don't matter.

*******
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjM2YzY5MTY2NTMyMWZmMzM0OGZkNDNkMDUwOTk3YjQ=

Obama needs to forgo public financing. It's the only way he'll be able to fight back the barrage of 527 and attack ads he'll see in the Fall. If he commits to public financing,we'll have a hard time winning the election. The Republicans are ruthless and their 527s will not hold any punches.

McLame has no high road to take here. He designed the system. He has skirted the law. John "15 million a month" McCain will have to deal with it. Suck it up, Johnny.

He's right. It's brilliant. Don't give taxpayer money to people they don't support (would I really want my money going to McCain?) Let the American people vote their pocket book.

If they want a candidate, they can go on the Internet and give....whatever. Not corporate millions (cough*Billary*cough). You can finance a campaign with $10...$25 donations. And then, it's not mismanaged either (cough*Hillary*cough).

Obama and his staff have taken the Dean campaign idea and developed it to be a fresh and creative solution to the problem of corruption endemic to candidates beholden to big business (cough*Billary*cough).

I can't wait to see their innovative ideas for solving other persistent problems.

OBAMA visits Billionaire's Row in San Francisco in search of parallel financing, and renowned SF photoblogger "Zombie" is there.
Check here for photos and commentary:

http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/

It's funny - public financing is supposed to keep lobbyists out of political campaigns and we're supposed to have millions of Americans supporting them, right? Well, McCain's entire campaign is run by lobbyists and he's taking public money. On the other hand, Obama's campaign won't take money from lobbyists and he's supported by a million or so private citizens. And Obama is criticized for not taking public financing? Which candidate is following the spirit of the public financing system?

Which candidate is doing things the right way?

Dear Senator Obama

This is one time we are requesting that you break your promise. Not only are we asking you to opt out of your promise of accepting public financing support¦We are strongly requesting that you do so. There will only be minor outrage and that will probably only come from the Republican politicians.

If truth be told you have symbolically accepted public financing when you allowed the American people to join in on your campaign to take back our United States of America.

If truth be told Senator McCain himself doesn"t appear to be headed towards taking Public financing¦ March "$15 Million Fundraising Amount¦"

So, if I read this correctly, Obama was for public financing, before he was against it.

"Present."

"When you're given the gift of advocacy, you don't sell it to the highest bidder," Mrs. Obama said. Mrs. Obama stressed how her husband has relied on "regular folks" instead of big donors. Instead of thousand-dollar donations, the Obama campaign has raised millions on small checks of $20 to $50. Mrs. Obama sees this participatory attitude as a new trend.

Wait just a minute there. If you do the math, on just one day in the Bay Area, Obama went to four events, three of which had $2,300 minimum donations per ticket, and the other $1,000 minimum per ticket. Each of the events, from the various descriptions, held as many as 400 people (the Getty mansion has a ballroom that reportedly seats at least 300). 400 x $2,300 = $920,000 per event, times three events = $2.76 million, plus the other event, which undoubtedly puts him over $3 million in contributions for this one day alone. And who knows how many other similar days he schedules in other parts of the country.

Michelle Obama (and other Obama campaign spokespeople) aren't telling the truth. It seems that a signficant portion of Obama's monthly campaign contributions are coming from "large donors"' -- i.e. rich people, not just the "$20 to $50" donations they're constantly bragging about.

Amazing...The "evolution" of yet another one of Senator Obama's statements and/or promises. This is typical of the Senator, who claimed to be a different kind of politician; taking whatever posture that is advantageous to him at the moment-just like a "typical" politician.

I'm sure that if he didn't have the Orwellian internet thought police machine cranked up as well, or if fat cats weren't donating to him "Chicago style" (like Rezco gave money to other folks to donate to him-in their name-with a bit-o-vig for themselves) then he would surely be singing a different tune. But, as always, it sems like the candidate of change slogan simply means that he can always change his position.

Imagine what Kieth Olbermann would be saying if Hillary did something like this. I'm sure that it would rate an hour long special on MSNBC !

So, McCain is pissed because he used his promise of taking public funds to get an $8 mil loan, and now he can't back out of his pledge to take public funds. Not that he's raising much money anyway...

Obama has found a new way, a parallel way, to raise small donations directly from the people - publicly - and keeping in the spirit of campaign finance reform. He has sent back money from lobbyists, even not-for-profit lobbyists.

It seems to me that the more of this I read, the more appropriate the Tiger Woods analogy becomes - take a man of mixed race, inject him into a rich old-man's club and watch him completely make over the game...for the better:)

Once again, Obama brilliantly rationalizes his latest act of hypocrisy. You can trust Obama to always considering things thoroughly and fairly, and then decide in favor of himself.

Add to the other hypocrisies: It's OK to disenfranchise 26 million people in Florida and Michigan because they voted too early. And more importantly, Hillary won there. Out of fairness to Obama, you can't count states where he lost. That's racist.

If this election were based on the Hypocrisy Count, Obama would win by a landslide.

My candidate for the Phony Baloney of the Year Award.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm currently trying to figure out which of the 3 candidates is least repulsive. Obama was a little bit ahead, but this puts him back a bit. Hillary: The Embellisher. Obama: The Hypocrite. McCain: General Eisenhower.

Who is going to be least likely to make matters worse in America? I honestly don't know.

My $25 was Public Financing. Take that $85 million and rebuild those homes in New Orleans that got washed away. Im sure every donor would approve.

his campaign is true to the fundamental principle behind public financing, he's taking money from 1.3 million ordinary people who are actively supporting their candidate with whatever monetary amount they can afford. and unlike checking a box on a form, they're actually actively engaged in and owning a piece of the campaign, these are the people to whom he is accountable. ordinary citizens get to send their money to the person of their choice rather than to a general account to be used even by those who feel no responsibility to answer to their concerns. a citizen powered campaign is a publicly financed campaign.