7 Days: A "Democracy Czar" Can Make Up for Obama's Rejection of Public Funding -- w/ Waldman, Huffington, Shrum & Green

It will be forgivable that Obama opted out of the public finance system IF he appoints a White House "Democracy Czar" to obtain pro-democracy reforms, like repairing the broken presidential system he rejected.

I'm a life-long zealot for public funding of public elections but Obama's refusal to opt-in to the presidential system was a "no brainer" that any candidate -- whether McCain, Clinton - would have also done if in his shoes.

Yes he had pledged to opt in to the system if the Republican nominee did so. His reasons for reversing field, however, are politically compelling:

*Inadequate Money. $84 million in public funds - an amount pegged to what McGovern spent in 1972 in current dollars - is inadequate to run a robust national general election campaign. Given the higher costs of advertising and micro-targeting - as well as desire to contest more than a few "battleground states" because some red states can become purple if not blue - it takes not $84 million but more like $300 million+.

*The public doesn't care much, as I discovered the hard way when Mike Bloomberg spent $74 million to defeat me for NYC Mayor in 2001 - or nearly as much in one city as the FEC would allow a nominee in 50 states. Voters apparently think that issues of security, war and the economy are more urgent than campaign finance - a point Arianna makes in the excerpts below - and don't worry so long as the big spender appears to be independent of special interests. And just as voters correctly believed that Bloomberg was too rich to be bought, they will see that Obama's millions of small donors aren't special interests sending money with strings attached. It's almost a form of public funding, but without taxpayer dollars.

*Yes 527s can unethically and untruthfully and unregulated smear without fear of rebuttal, as Bob Shrum explains. And any candidate will want an adequate bank account to respond if necessary. Here a nominee can say he's a Boy Scout, based on the motto, "Be prepared."

*McCain has "unclean hands" when he tries to seize the high moral ground here since he previously used his pledge to opt-in during the primaries as collateral to obtain a bank loan needed to survive in 2007...before he too changed his mind and opted out in the nomination contest later.

*"Are all the laws but one to go unenforced?" asked Lincoln, when he ignored habeas corpus once in order to save the Union. And as important as campaign finance reform is, it would not be smart for Obama to comply with the presidential financing system and thereby diminish his chances to choose Supreme Court appointments, withdraw from Iraq, pursue a green economy, enact tax fairness, enforce civil rights laws.

Still.

It's awkward for a reformer - a law professor and advocate of ethics, lobbying, disclosure and congressional and presidential campaign finance reforms -- to reject the 30 year old system of public funding....unless by assuring his win he then commits to a larger principle of creating a "Democracy Czar" to push for all these reforms... Indeed, such an office could try to assure that the presidential finance system is adequately funded so that President Obama can run for reelection within it in 2012..

Even beyond protecting his reformist persona, there are three reasons that a White House Office for Democracy is essential.

First, while democracy issues were largely ignored in this election season because they don't move voters as pocketbook and war issues do, they are indeed vital and a sine qua non to all other reforms. So long as special interests dominate congressional considerations about military, environmental and tax policies, you won't get desirable procurement, pollution and economic reforms that people need and deserve. If our democracy is broken, America can't get into gear.

Second, there is no Department of Democracy, which is one of the reasons why issues such as congressional public financing, a presidential system that works, greater transparency in an Internetted era, and an stronger lobbying ethics law falls through the slats. As author Michael Waldman describes below, when as a 32 year-old unknown staffer he was put in charge of White House government reform efforts in 1993, it wasn't hard for congressional barons to figure out that it wasn't exactly a Clinton priority.

Third, these issues cut across all agencies and three branches. And since there is no Department of Democracy, only a person and office of sufficient stature and staff can be an inter-agency advocate making sure that all government agencies -- whatever their other substantive priorities -- not ignore the overall priority that the new administration must also be more trasnparent, accountable and indepdendent of special interest sway.

By way of analogy, when Jimmy Carter was president, the essential test of whether a country was friend or foe was whether they favored the Ruskies or Anaconda Copper. So Carter created an Assistant Secretary for Human Rights in the State Department, and put Pat Derian in as his advocate -- and now that's Carter's main legacy.

If a President Obama wants to push for policies to reverse global warming and reduce poverty and enact tax fairness, he has an EPA administrator, an HHS secretary, a Treasury Secretary to deputize who can project his interests.

But where's his Pat Derian?

Listen to the entire show here on Air America.

EXCERPTS FROM 7 DAYS IN AMERICA, JUNE 21, W/ MICHAEL WALDMAN, HUFFINGTON, SHRUM & GREEN

WALDMAN: Q: In your new book, "A Return to Common Sense", you offer seven ideas for restoring democracy to America. What one or two would you advise Barack Obama as a President-Elect to focus on? "One is a major improvement in voting by making registration an obligation of government, which would add up to 50 million people to the rolls. Another is a very tough lift but would do more than anything else to change the culture in Washington, which is campaign finance reform -- finally moving to public financing for Congress and restoring the Presidential system. And one more...he's got to work to restore checks and balances, and bring the imperial, monarchical presidency back into line."

WALDMAN: Q: Speaking of which, you were an advisor to President Bill Clinton, who advocated a campaign finance reform program, but he couldn't get it enacted. What happened? "I was in the room at the very first meeting that the new President had with the Democratic leadership of Congress, the day after the Inaugural, in the Cabinet Room. And believe it or not, it was on the need to pass public financing. Bill Clinton talked about how politically important it was, and Vice President Gore provided a very strong moral voice for it. The Senate Democrats said they were going to do it. But then Tom Foley, the Speaker of the House, spoke, and it was like watching a scene from a gangster movie... 'it's going to be really tough for Dan Rostenkowski to whip the guys on this and the tax bill at the same time'.... The caption could have read, 'If you dare to push campaign finance on us, watch what happens to your main priority!'"

HUFFINGTON: Q: In the Democratic primaries, such long-time pro-democracy advocates as Obama and Clinton largely ignored democracy issues. Why? "Well, elections are not about every issue. Elections are about whatever the poignant issues of the time are. And right now, it's clearly pocketbook issues and the war. And a lot of other things that are incredibly significant in governing are not going to be major campaigning issues."

SHRUM: Q: Barack Obama was criticized this week for flip-flopping when he opted out of the public funding system. But meanwhile, John McCain has been riding the Zig-Zag Express on so many issues, most recently offshore oil drilling. Will this catch up with McCain or will the media continue to give him a free pass? "I think McCain is beginning to come across as stylistically Dole and substantively Bush, and I can't imagine a worse combination to go into a general election in a year when people want change." HUFFINGTON: "I'm hoping we're going to reach a tipping point, because [the flip-flops] are now becoming daily. And there's one theme to them, which makes it easier for the media to grasp, which is basically McCain surrendering everything he believes in. The oil drilling was the latest, but of course we've had the tax cuts, we've had immigration, we've had torture, we've had agents of intolerance. There is one very clear narrative thread here, so at some point I hope the national media will catch up with the fact that the McCain they fell in love with in 2000 is not on the ballot in 2008."

HUFFINGTON: Q: Do you think Republicans will give in to the temptation to make Michele Obama a political target? "Obviously she will be a target. Sheri Blair [Tony Blair's wife] was telling me that if you look at whose wives are being attacked, it's always the wives of guys who are ahead, who are doing well.... It's not Cindy McCain who is being attacked, and here in London it's not Gordon Brown's wife who is being attacked, because they have plenty to attack him on. So his wife will continue to be a target as long as Obama is the front-runner." SHRUM: "You used the phrase 'will Republicans surrender to the temptation.' They will embrace it! They can't resist it. They have these 527s, these independent operators out there right now, who are trafficking in complete lies, who are moving around the Internet. And someone like Floyd Brown, who made the Willie Horton commercial in 1988, is going to make a commercial that is going to be a flat-out lie. And the Obama campaign is going to have to come back and whack it hard."

HUFFINGTON: Q: This week, when the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay detainees have the right to challenge their detention in federal courts, McCain called it one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. Arianna, as one who has frequently worries that fear will trump hope in this election, do you think that McCain will continue to use war and terrorism to appeal to voter's fears? "Yes, I think it's clear that the only card that McCain has left is fear, and he's going to play it with everything he has. There's nothing else left; what else does he have?"

Comments

[texastrixie]

This is a NON-issue. Campaign finance is forever changed. From now on, the candidate that inspires people the most will have the most money via the internet. The only problem for Democrats is fielding the best candidates and having the best ideas about how to run the country.

Of course McBush et al are screaming foul. If McBush could rally regular people to fork over $10-$50 per family, he'd be going the independent financing route too. I think that the Repubs are more frightened about the future of campaign financing, not just Obama. Because of the internet, regular working-class people may now be able to out-spend the corporations. Finally, progress that actually benefits the masses.

[Argente]

With respect to public funding, obviously it depends on whose ox is being gored. Now that the Dems have the wealth, private funding looks pretty good to them. The debate today is different than it was for McCain-Feingold: the difference being the internet. This time around, Obama is adept at using it, McCain is not. In four years, any serious candidate will acquire this expertise before going into a campaign. At that point, drop the cap on single private donations from $2300 to $500 and eliminate government involvement in campaign funding altogether. Then the bundlers won't be fat cat partisans trading favors, they'll be internet marketers with a link to almost everyone with some type of communication device. This is democracy.

[Zenobius]

I'm sorry, but the whole idea of a "Democracy Czar" just cracks me up The Tsar of all the all Russias was after all the symbol of autocracy and opposition to democracy.

[ceindependence]

Wait, Wait!! Where have I heard this before. Oh, thats right.....the end justifiys the means. Now what country used this line....could it have been Germany in their effort to find the perfect race...not surprised from the progressives.....kinda like the 2000 elections and when the progressives wanted a recount... was it Stalin who said, "Its not who casts the votes, its who counts the votes"...............or was that Mugabe, no it was Stalin! What a slippery slope the progressives are on.....makes me think of this quote...................................

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C.S. Lewis

[koromuso]

Isn't "Democracy Czar" an oxymoron?

[SadOldVet]

Why the h*ll are these Clintonistas still attacking Obama on tertiary issues? Do you think that Democrats need to continue creating talking points for McBush?

Green's attacks on Obama may be subtle, but are part of a continuing string of attacks from Huffington Post authors who seem to still have a yearning for Billary. Get over it - it ain't gonna happen.

If Green wants to attack, let him attack McBush with the same effort that he continues to attack Obama.

[AlexVonHussein]

you are right , you didnt read the blogs this past weakened. Many people claiming for be Obama supporters wrote nasty stuff here and I wonder are they really Democrats! If you see any one with subtle drama, know they are not for Obama. they want his blood but use the face of talking issues which are not connected to each other.. All over the world papers say that was a good political move and here he is under attack. Read the Obama website now and then and you will see real supporters are on the ground and keeping the eyes on the Ball.

There was one blog I read from disabled ex clinton supporter who donated 10 dollars and she keeping the eyes on the ball too..Democrates have to get to the white house.

[SadOldVet]

Or as happened on Sunday with Wolf 'AIPAC' Blitzer:

Had a segment about Obama 'flip flop' on financing &
followed with a segment about McCain 'changing his mind' about a policy...

For Corporately Nice News (CNN):

dem = flip flop
repub = changing his mind

[GLaB]

*"Are all the laws but one to go unenforced?" asked Lincoln*

I have a similar question: "Are all the elections but one to be lost?"

Obama's moneymaking machine is unprecedented - certainly among Democrats, who are usually on the wrong side of the kind of disparity you faced in NY. His ripping up of Public Financing, however, is a precedent that will fester long into the future, poisoning all elections for the foreseeable future. The Republicans will never yield their corporate and fatcat advantages anymore - surely you know that. This whole article is just an exercise in CYA for Obama

If a Pres. Obama or your "Czar" were to try to ram through some sort of campaign finance laws over Republican objections - assuming they can even get Cloture, it will end up at the Supreme Court before the ink is dry. This is the Roberts - Alito - Scalia - Thomas - Kennedy Supreme Court we're talking about, here. They would not only toss the new law, but use the opportunity to reverse all the campaign finance limitations painfully won over the last 30 years. The well of Watergate guilt has been tapped dry long ago.

This was really a TERRIBLE move by Obama. Leaving aside his blatant hypocrisy - which the Republicans will bludgeon him with from now till November - he has sacrificed the entire concept of election reform for a completely unnecessary one-time advantage.

[gtt]

Senator Obama has not violated any promise or moral or ethical standard. He has taken the right political course to win. Since he has created a hugh contiributor base composed of private individuals, no special interest PACs, and in modest amounts, he has every expectation of going back to those individuals for more, all within the limits for individual contirbutions. All he is avoiding is the overall limitation in spending by a campaign, which many others have pointed out is meaningless if 527s are out there supporting the republicans.

First thing we do is win. Then Mr. Green and others can propose changes.

[Argente]

Nobody but hopeless addicts like ourselves cares about how campaigns are financed. This issue has a 4-day shelf-life like most others. While the McCain campaign is trying to put this in play, the Obama campaign is raking in $$ and nothing will slow them down. Election reform no longer needs to be legislated; the internet is leveling the playing field. Shouldn't good conservatives welcome a real opportunity to restrain government and leave the peoples' business to the people?

[HumeSkeptic]

How about also a Super-Czar just to keep track of how many Czars we have?

[AuntSally]

I don't care what the particular cause: the word "czar" shouldn't be attached to it.

Drug czar
Security czar
Health czar

Ugh.

We have a Natioal Security Advisor.
A science advisor.
Economic advisors.

Obama needs to make democratic reform a priority. Agreed. That's why I'm voting for him. He needs good advisors - He's the "Democracy Czar" -- it's called a President.

[bazokbros]

Obama doesn't need to apologize for anything. Why would any candidate that has Fox News right wing zealots like O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and Laura Ingram handicap himself with the same resources as McCain? Obama has already rejected 527 money from MoveOn.org where McCain has not objected to any 527 money. McCain has only himself to blame when Obama gave him several opportunities during the primaries to denounce the 527s and the best McCain could come up with was his hands were tied and couldn't force his own party not to run certain ads. At best McCain will say about 527s attacking Obama on his behalf "I don't support them." Kinda like his emphatic declaration with the NC RNC and the TN RNC attacking Michelle Obama.

I'd do the same thing if I were part of his campaign regarding public financing and people who think Obama is going to completely revolutionalize the American campaign system in a single a campaign are delusion.

[AlexVonHussein]

You are very right!! Mccain didnt see he was getting himself on a trap. They asked him early do you want to take the high road. He said yes he would. Then came the attacks and Mccain said he could not stop or monitor them. They got vicious in the south and Mccain used them to show that if you Obama is the nominee those are the attacks he will bring and he said he has no control over them.

Who can trust such a flip flopper .

Now the same is happening to Michelle, Cindy Mccain was give the chance to take the high road... Obama called on Mccain to denounce attacks on Michelle , them what the McCain did was bluntly say they would not. ...instead Michelle deserved it cause the DNC told Cindy to declare her Tax returns.