But Who will Fix the System?

As expected, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) announced today that he would not opt-in to the presidential partial public financing system. While his decision is regrettable, it is understandable due to the major shortcomings of the 30-year-old system and the failure of Congress to fix the badly broken system in recent years.

With his actions today, the senator now has an increased obligation to the American people that he will make overhauling our special interest-driven campaign finance apparatus for both Congress and the presidency a top priority if elected.

Sen. Obama has long been a supporter of Clean Elections, or full public financing of elections. From his days in the Illinois legislature to his current job in the Senate, Sen. Obama has consistently railed against the pay-to-play political system.

He is a co-sponsor of both the bipartisan presidential public financing legislation authored by Sens. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Susan Collins (R-ME) and the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act authored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has refused to sponsor either one.

Sen. Obama's support for public financing and his groundbreaking demonstration of the potential of small donor fundraising indicates that he is up to this challenge. However, Sen. Obama and his campaign must be clear in the weeks and months ahead about their commitment to ending a system that puts big money campaign contributors ahead of the needs and concerns of all Americans.

While declining public funds for this election is regrettable, a failure on the part of the next president to help lead the fight to win grassroots-empowering public financing for all federal offices would be unforgivable.

Comments

[GLaB]

You can't possibly believe "Clean Elections" has any chance whatsoever after this, can you?

[wedecide08]

Far from being regrettable, this is a very savvy move on his part.

We all know the Right will end-run the public finance regulations with their 527's and to a lesser degree their PAC's. That is where the dirty tricks and smear attacks will be funded from. If anything, Obama is positioning himself to fight back from higher ethical ground funded by citizen donations (records of which will be avail in the public domain). In fact, Obama will be saving the US govt $85 mill it otherwise would have spent on his campaign.

He WON'T be the one taking taxpayer dollars from the govt's broken elections financing system and then tacitly letting others break/blur the regulations on his behalf. That's right, that'll be McCain and Republicans.

[MourningDude]

The first reform should be that if you refuse public financing, you opponent gets both shares.

If by opting out Obama was handing McCain an extra $85 million to campaign with, you can bet your life he would have taken public finanacing in a split second.

[BurntToast]

"However, Sen. Obama and his campaign must be clear in the weeks and months ahead about their commitment to ending a system that puts big money campaign contributors ahead of the needs and concerns of all Americans."

I agree, but must have missed something... thought he made that clear by shutting off the lobby spigot and asking contributors not to fund ancillary political groups. Could you be more specific on what you suggest?

I have a litany of items that I feel need be addressed in the future about access to the executive. Perhaps we are on the same track.

[Belisarius]

Lobbyists and PACs are a cancer in our government. They have completely corrupted congress. The only way to get rid of them is to fire the ear-marking incumbents that take their money.

Vote!

[starboymikey]

Lobbyists and PACs are a cancer in our government.
____________________________________________
You're almost right. They *are* our government.

[ReadyNow]

Yes that pesky first amendment keeps getting in the way. Lobbying is a protected right...unlike abortion for example...

Lobbyists are my guys who I pay with various dues to "petition the government"

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where is that pro abortion clause again? You know, the one the SCOTUS made up?

[bgregs]

I'm less concerned about this than I would be if most of his money came from Big Donors. While he definitely has some of those, more of his war chest comes from small donors who are giving simply what they can, rather than the maximum allowed by law!