John McCain cannot push the public financing issue too far without exposing his own vulnerability. In the early stages of the primary, he arranged for a bank loan of $4 million. As collateral he used his then non-existent public financing money. I.e., he got a huge loan based on money he did not have, and was in fact would have been public money. That act alone raised some legal eyebrows.
Wait, it gets better. Later on, McCain indicated to the FEC that he wanted to opt out of the public financing system AFTER he had already used the public financing system as a source of collateral. All of this smells to high heaven. So McCain, the campaign financing reform Patron Saint, had his hammy hands in the public cookie jar and now wants out.
There is a further irony in that the FEC is currently defunct because it is two directors short of a quorum needed to decide on McCain's request. The reason being the Democrats will not approve of Bush's two handpicked candidates for the opening. So right now McCain is stuck in limbo and roasting under the heat down there.
So for now, McCain is stuck with a commitment to use public financing for the general election. He and cohorts cannot go after Obama too hard without broadcasting their own predicament, which all things considered are ethically a lot worse than Obama's simply saying, "I changed my mind."
An Idea for Obama's Public Financing Quandry
Barack Obama isn't an ordinary candidate running an ordinary campaign. He has made it his mission to upend the status quo in Washington so it is not unfair to demand of him a higher standard of integrity than we ask from the other candidates. The danger of optimistic social movements, of daring the populace to hope, is that you are much more vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy.
As Andrew Romano of Newsweek reported yesterday, last September Obama checked the box on a survey stating that he would "forgo private funding in the general election." Then, he volunteered to add , "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Since Obama can routinely raise upwards of $40 million a month, agreeing to a cap of $84.1 million for the entire general election no longer seemed like such a sweet deal.
His camp is now arguing that his vast network of small donors represents "a parallel public financing system." "Here it's happening naturally," David Axelrod told the New York Times today, "People are sending $5, $10, $25, $100 contributions."
Mr. Axelrod is right and he's not-so-right. How many thousands of wealthy Obama supporters have also given the maximum $2300 or even a grand?
If Obama wants to break his promise of public financing he needs to replace it with something even more inspiring. Bush had his " Pioneers" who bundled $100,000, his "Rangers" who bundled 200,000 and "Super Rangers," 300,000.
Might I humbly suggest:
"The Obama Scout"
At $100 bucks a pop.
If Obama limits himself to not accepting more than $100 from any individual for the general election he could credibly claim a parallel public financing system and just as he did with his brilliant race speech, another bold move would again demonstrate that his campaign is about overturning the politics of cynicism and fear.
Trey Ellis is the author of"Bedtime Stories: Adventures in the Land of Single-Fatherhod."
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
For those who are want to learn more about McCain's public financing hi-jinks, here are some links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503639_pf.html
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=the_pete_rose_of_politics
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/mccain_campaign_banked_on_taxp.php
http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/04/john-mccain-preparing-to-accept-public-financing/
Or: google on "mccain's public financing problems"
This is a slam dunk, when Limbaugh gamed the election, Obama suddenly realized that he would need a great deal more money to offset the Republican stranglehold on broadcast media.
Mr. Ellis' idea is a good one, and timely, but I can't decide how I feel about it. I have been wondering how to talk about the nature of Obama's fundraising in contrast to the public-financing program. Giving small amounts to the campaign has been a new and MUCH more effective form of political expression for a lot of his supporters for more than a year now, and it would be difficult to give that up in the fall. In the beginning it felt like an escape from the hopelessness of voting in 2000 and 2004. Since then it is a way to say to the other campaigns, through the press, we are on top! all through the primary. The small amounts I have been sending the campaign have had a greater effect on this race than my vote in a New York City precinct that went 60+% for Clinton in February--I didn't feel helpless, even in New York! Certainly the hours volunteering help too, but I don't know that I'd want to give up this form of, yes, influence! Not influence on the candidate, but on the race--if I could have done this in 2000, would it have helped?--and how do we make this distinction?
Obama should just brazen it out. Even if McCain want to, there is no way he can control the 527s. That gives Obama an out right there. For the first time in decades the Democrats will have more money than the Republicans. This is not a time to get religion.
I want Obama to win. I don't want to see him fight one-handed.
Win at all costs, even if your principles get abandoned along the way? That doesn't sound like a "new kind of politician" to me. Sounds like the same old, same old.
Obama's pledge was conditional on reaching agreement with the Republicans for public funding. That agreement would have to cover various conditions. All they have to do is sit down with the Republicans and disagree on those conditions (which was likely whether he was ahead in funding or not).
CLEDUC, thank you for pointing out what everyone seems to be forgetting, or just ignoring. keep up the good word!
Another fanatsy issue to distract from real problems. Obama has a truck load of them, not to mention ridiculous promises he won't be able to keep. It's all just rhetoric, and meaningless rhetoric at that. It goes over because of the deep voice, sing song delivery, and supporters who prefer name calling to policy debate.
It's sad. Obama's speach reveals a serious ignorance. But the media covers for him. And judging by how quickly his supporters were convinced by the MSM's shallow insults, they wouldn't recognoize adult conversation if it flew in the window on spandex wings.
Bottom line. Fixing the economy and getting out of this war strategically will take masterful skill. We need Clinton knowledge and achievement more than ever. They actually had rhetorical lines in 1990, which drove me crazy. They were 'the man from Hope', and 'moving the country forward'. But that was it. All the rest was policy specifics, on which Bill was a leading intelectual. And they didn't make a bunch of promises they couldn't keep in order to mislead the young and inexperienced.
But it's too late now. Once Hillary is out of the way, they'll go after your guy, but not too quickly, or even the Obama crowd might get suspicious.
Enjoy the revival meeting while you can. Get out there and faint in the aisles. You're in for a brutal let down when your guy starts fumbling over policy and red State politics more vicious than anything you can imagine.
"Fixing the economy and getting out of this war strategically will take masterful skill. We need Clinton knowledge and achievement more than ever. " Was it this very masterful skill you talk about that spurred Hillary's vote for the war? Clinton "masterful skill" equates to something much closer to poll-driven nothingness. The thrust of every decision the Clintons have ever made has been for the sole purpose of their own reelection. Hillary's vote for Iraq was a thoughtless charade of "toughness". Total elasticity and not even a hint of good judgment.
Well, I would judge the capabilities of Clinton and Obama based on the evidence of past achievements. In the case of Obama we only have his campaign, where he has been inclusive, mobilized the public, and defeated the special interests with that support.
Clinton gives two examples to work with, her campaign and her universal health care plan (the first one). The former: lost a huge lead, infighting of her upper ranks, top down system...not so good. The latter, run by special interests, infighting and brinksmanship, ultimatly went down in flames as even those who supported her idea opposed her plan...also not so good.
I know who I trust to fix the economy and get us out of Iraq.
So your logic is the only people who are connected to people who've previously been rulers should be allowed to be president? Break open an encyclopedia and look up the term "monarchy" and I'll think you'll find what you're advocating.
We have no idea of what "Obama's speach" you're referring to when Obama has given tons of substantive policy speeches - in fact this time last year he was being _criticized_ for being to professorial in his speeches.
Look, the nation took a chance on Bill Clinton just as it is being asked to take a chance on Barack Obama. Bill Clinton was not that well known a politician, being from Arkansas and all, yet people recognized that he could make a good leader. And today, people see similar great potential in Barack Obama and believe he is the best person to take this nation forward.
Hillary is making her own bunch of promises just as Barack is. You think her universal health care coverage plan is going to see the light of day as she is proposing today? Fat chance of that ever happening!
And please stop insulting Obama supporters by intimating that they are somehow naive, gullible and "inexperienced".
And this whole fear-mongering of "the scary Repubs are going to eat Obama for lunch", are you going to continue to allow your life & decisions to be dictated by what the Repubs might do?
Something like what they did to Kerry? Or like what they did with Rev Wright? Unless they can come up with something Senator Obama said or did himself( personally), and have the art to back it up, they're just blowing in the wind this election. They could'nt stop 2006 and they won't stop 2008. And beside's have you been paying attention to McCain. We're not going back down that road.
If MCcain can't get the Evangelical GOP base to financially support his campaign...too bad! That is what the REAL story is. The Base is not all that hot for him and he knows it. However, the GOP 527's are just waiting for Obama to fall for this trick. Then They'll blanket the country with BS. Fortunately the American public will still send in their $25 ( I have done it several times) so Senator Obama can fight back. SENATOR OBAMA DON'T FALL FOR IT. KEEP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING!
We have your back !!!!
BARACK OBAMA 2008
This time I want a smart President!
Obama is not an issue, McCain will win that a guarantee.
I am also a small donor to Obama. One of the amazing things about Obama's campaign has been the bottom up organization (I think McCain and Clinton are jealous) which is one of the reasons I decided to support him. His campaign has been the best organized which tells me a lot about his abilities. I don't want him to fall into the 'public financing' trap. Every time that has happened to the democrats the republican 527s come in with their bottomless pits of money and swamp television with their dirty ads. I think that is what Obama means when he says he will 'agressively pursue an agreement.' He knows from watching past campaigns what the republicans are capable of doing.
For once I am happy to see a republican struggling to raise funds. The republicans and to a lesser extent, the Clinton's, have always relied on large donors to fund their campaigns. When their donors hit the wall on limits their done except to send money to the party or the 527s. Obama has big donors but the dominate donors have been the small ones. McCain, for all his vaunted heroics, can be a devious man; he is secretly hoping that Obama will fall for it.
He may have signed a pledge before he realized he would be where he is today. The game changed and I think he has a right to change his mind to improve his chances of winning that game.
One does not make an agreement with the Devil, which is what the GOP Machine is. The grainy and scary 527s, the corrupt right wing radio hosts and the MSM who can always be counted on to echo and amplify the inane and the trivial - all of the same old s*** is on the way. Obama will need hundreds of millions of dollars more, maybe a billion, just to keep up. I'm with you, jaglon. Obama's campaign should take the hit for "flip-flopping" on this, and then proceed to kick a little ass.
I agree its about winning the election.
My family has discussed this and we all feel that Senator Obama should keep doing what he's doing. He should be ready for Hell, but give as much as he receives. We've got your back.......check books and credit cards ready. Let's do this!
Again, Obama promises one thing and does the opposite, because it is beneficial to him. I admire his ability to con thousands of citizens for their hard-earned cash, but he should not give his word, if he is not willing to keep it. But maybe it was "just words"... Words do matter. And often, they come back to haunt you...
Your a smart one, he is all words and has no experience or accomplishments.
Wow cmrinc, that was pretty deep.
List Hillary's "experience or accomplishments." None of the 3 major candidates has any executive experience - and watching your spouse be governor or president doesn't count. McInsane will give us more war, more deaths and more debt, plus an even worse SCOTUS. Obama will be the nominee for the Democratic Party, cmrinc, so cast your vote for change, or say hello (again) to Dubya II.
You can save yourself do the liberal thing"Convert to Islam" and we can cancel the war.
If we have public financing for elections we would give other people who are able and qualified an equal chance to compete. As it is now, you have to be rich, or be able to persuade people to donate to you. Those with means and interests are buying American government and politics. Result is that we may not get the best option available. In addition, the cuttroat personal attacks are unattractive and many very qualified people will not even enter such a *contest*. It appears anyone, and everyone is up for attack, including one's mother and pet. That does not solve the problems we have in this country. Obama has a platform. He had staked out that he would initiate change. In the end, I, personally, see nothing that changes a thing. I also do NOT see a black candidate. Obama does not come out of the American black historical conditions. I see those differences clearly, because I grew up in The Netherlands and then came to the U.S. He is like an European of biracial, or multiracial ancestry, and that means a guy like everyone else. He should not set himself apart the way he does. And all of us need to see and hear him correctly, before we are swept off our feet.
None of it Matters Anyway:
Obama will lose the Election.
Any dirt on Hillary would be nothing new, we are used to it.
However Obama is clean and shiny on the surface, there will be plenty of dirt to come out on him.
To get to where he is today he had to step on a few toes, those people will come out with their stories and bury Obama
Most of the dirt on Obama is being held until sept-nov the onslaught will begin. We will find he is another money & power hungry politcian like the rest.
He is tied close to the anti American left this will all come out soon. With Hillary we have heard it all before and its nothing new.
Heres one: A black businessman from Chicago calls a radio show to share his view of Barack Hussien Obama.
http://vlogitics.com/play.php?vid=88
There is this misconception that "with Hillary we have heard it all before and its nothing new."
When had we previously heard the Bosnia lie? That would be a HUGE political liability for her in November.
Her stance on NAFTA? If it were such a "known" entity why is there such confusion as to where she stands on it?
The problem is just because Barack Obama isn't mudslinging like a "typical Republican" you folks are getting the WRONG impression that all the mud to be thrown at Clinton has already been thrown. Obama has stuck to the issues where as Hillary has unfortunately engaged in the kind of petty personal attacks the Republicans are fond of - Obama isn't a Muslim "as far as she knows."; Obama hasn't passed the "commander-in-chief test" but she and McDumb have. Thanks to Hillary Clinton we know about Obama's kindergarten ambitions. Yet when Obama is calling her out on _specific issues_ that she has flip-flopped on, like driver's license for illegals, NAFTA, you call it personal attacks.
And PLEASE stop passing these stupid videos/news articles about black people that don't like Barack Obama. They are racially insulting and condescending as I'm sure many of us can find a TON of white folks who hate the Clintons even more, yet you don't see us passing video with "Here's a white person that don't like Clinton."
Without even listening to him, I already know that we all have a view. You just gave your's and I have my own. I also have a view of the Clinton's and one of McCain. I'm going with the new view, I'm tired of the old ones.
OBAMA "08"
Hillary is unelectable. Your argument, cmrinc, would be a powerful reason to vote for Nixon. Hey, he's the crook we know, right? If you know anything incriminating about Obama that hasn't already surfaced, let us know. That goes for ANY of you. I really would love to hear it now, because otherwise he's likely going to be our nominee. And I'd rather learn it all while we can still turn back. I'm guessing, though, that there's not much more that hasn't come out already, which is why some people are beginning to panic a little bit. If I'm wrong, please let us all know.
Theres a lot more, no need to worry you can bet the right has an army of people and investigators digging up his past. Right now all Obama is getting is small arms fire, teh right is saving the big guns for later. You can put you money on it.
I can call a radio show and say that I know Obama - Give me break.
Quandry is right. He says he's a different kind of politician. Yet, as soon as his principles get in the way of his lust for power, he jettisons them without a second thought.
Is Obama really a different kind of politician? This issue will prove that one way or another.
Where's the law that says he has to be a plaster saint?
Anyhow, with McCain's flip flopping on public financing for the primaries and even planning to use it as collateral, his criticisms are bound to sound a little feeble.
Tell me this - How can a candidate get elected on only 84 mill. Huh.
Besides public financing is bogus cause all everyone has to do is donate to the DNC and Barack gets his money from that. Mind you he might not have complete control on how the money is spent but its basically the way it is now.
not everyone that has maxed out is super wealthy, a lot of people are just really committed to what he's doing and have been giving smaller amount for many months. now i don't know if i think he should back out of public financing, but i do think there would have to be a lot of specifics ironed out for it to really be fair. i also think his point that what his campaign has achieved does in many ways reflect the larger ideal behind public financing, is absolutely true. personally i'd rather be able to send money of any amount directly to the candidate that i support as i see fit, than into some general pot that's equally available to a candidate that has no vested interest in representing what's important to me as a voter.
It is amazing how all the Obama supporters here will excuse this, and give him a pass, but would slaughter Hillary Clinton if she did the same thing.
I don't really care about this issue. It really doesn't matter
I'm an Obama donor also, repeatedly donating $25. I would like him to change his mind about taking public financing. Maybe Obama can say he decided to opt out of "taxpayer financing," because the public is already financing his campaign.
My concern is if the general election campaign gets ugly, the spending limits will hamper his ability to respond effectively to swiftboat-type attacks. Since I think Obama is the right person to lead our country at this time, I want his to run the most effective campaign possible, and I'll be more than happy to continue to do my part to fund it.
Posted April 10, 2008 | 12:27 PM (EST)