Should Obama or Clinton Take Public Funding for the General Election? Let the Convention Decide
Taking public financing, and having 3 extra weeks with the same amount of money as George Bush whose convention was later, probably cost John Kerry the '04 election as it was one of the central reasons his campaign did not respond vigorously to the Swiftboating that was funded by T. Boone Pickens and a group of wealthy Republican donors in a 527, supposedly "outside" the Bush campaign. This group ran $38 million of scurrilous ads impugning Senator Kerry's heroism in favor of their candidate who checked the "no" box when asked if he would volunteer for overseas duty. I was at ground zero, Cayahoga County,Ohio, for the last week of the election, and the SwiftBoat ads ran dawn to dusk nonstop during that period.
John McCain is taunting Barack Obama to agree, now, to take public financing for the general election and eschew private funding. We know already that "FreedomWatch", a rightwing 527 managed by former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, is raising money to launch its attack on whomever the Democrats nominate. And, they will raise much more than $38 million.
The Republicans cannot win an election without personal, scurrilous attacks on their opponents. With all of the missteps of the '04 Kerry campaign, John Kerry came close to winning against a sitting wartime President, and would have certainly won had it been just his campaign vs. Bush's without the 527s.
The Bush campaign in 2000 even did it in the primaries to John McCain himself, questioning his patriotism while imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam on behalf of their guy who joined the Air National Guard and became the only pilot in history to surrender his pilot's license voluntarily, and not to take an ordered physicial because he decided he did not need to follow regulations, and got away with it. For good measure they accused McCain of fathering an illegitimate black baby.
That history might suggest that McCain would agree not to have 527 organizations participate in the campaign. No candidate, however, has that power and authority. Moreover, there is no evidence that the McCain running for President is the McCain of old. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, the money will flow into FreedomWatch and a series of 527s, probably funded by more-or-less the same people, to reprise the 1990s attacks on the Clintons, with additional nonsense and filth added to bring them "up to date". She cannot afford to take public money only.
Neither can Barack Obama. People Barack never knew or met will suddenly appear and claim intimate knowledge of some aspect of his life. His capacity to realign national political constituencies into a new majority---eg., that uses free markets but does not worship them as religion---poses an existential threat to the entire radical rightwing mythology. They will come after him with everything they can with absolutely no regard for the truth.
The nominee of the Democratic Party will be chosen by the delegates at the convention. Right now, these are mere numbers. When the convention convenes, these numbers will be real people. Those people represent the voters of the party in the same way that a Board of Directors represents shareholders of a company. One of the Board's duties is to select a President who then asks the Board approve his slate of officers. The Board has the responsibility to vet those choices, but rarely imposes anyone on the President because the personal chemistry has to be there for a management team to be successful. Similarly, the convention will select a Presidential candidate who will then ask the convention to approve his choice for Vice President.
The Board of a company also approves its annual budget and overall business strategy. It is up to the Board to determine sources of funding (sell stock, take loans, etc.) and the level of expenditure. It would be altogether fitting and proper, therefore, for the "Board", i.e., the delegates to the convention, to decide whether the people it has selected and approved to run as President and Vice-President should budget public funding or private. By the time of the convention, they will, among other things, have observed the activities of the rightwing Republican 527s for 5 months, not that that will provide comfort that they will be silent during the fall. The delegates can decide whether their candidates, in whom they have invested their trust for winning the general election, can risk being Swiftboated without adequate campaign funds to fight back. I
The Democrats should tell McCain that the decision for public or private financing will be left to the convention. That takes it off the table until then. McCain can find out their decision by tuning in. He may even learn something about democracy.
Loading comments…
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
Shame on all of you!!! Public financing should be sung from the hill tops! It is one of the few concrete measures to knee cap the corporate greed. Besides, what a great tactic. McCain is a big proponnent of public financing, one of his main beliefs that labels him a "Maverick". We could hope for nothing BETTER than Obama or HRC to take public financing and McCain refuse.
Besides, the last thing I want is any DEM in the Whitehouse beholden to big special interests; Pharma, telecom, defense, Wall street. Yeah that will be real good. Kerry lost because he had no stones, and crappy advisors from the DLC, he was the Dem nominee!!
I agree that the Demos should not knee-cap themselves this time around, when you figure that the Republicans will be capable of digging up dirt with tax-payers money. That is to say, they'll finally get to put the spying programs into full throttle. There will be nothing and no way for Obama or Hillary to keep campaign secrets, while they are having everything routed through the backrooms in Verizon and AT&T and the other telecoms that started spying 6 months before 9/11.
Democrats should be ready for the lowest, belly-scaping campaign in American history from a movement that is a wounded and cornered beast.
This is actually a good idea... The delegates decide many things at the convention in addition to the nominee. For example, they vote on the platform the candidate is to run on. Having the delegates decide about how to finance the campaign of the individual they select to run in their name is entirely reasonable.
I figured that's what it would come down to. Not only should the DNC step in but it should also explain why.
Hm, I wonder, can Obama sue for libel and slander? That would be a pretty good use of campaign funds.
No they should not take public funding. McCain is only making this an issue because he can't raise the money Clinton & Obama can. Which ever candidate wins this nomination will need big bucks to fight back the republican swift boat organizations. McCain can get his old butt out there are work for his money like Obama and Clinton are doing.
They would have to be an idiot to take public funding.
I know we have the RNC and republicans posting on these and other boards for democrats to do stupid things, but they need to take care of their criminal republicans.
I have lost all respect for republicans in the last 7 years. They have constantly shown they are anti American, not christains and they are deffinately not patroit to this country.
They have constantly cut funds for our Soldier's armor , equipment , health programs and have a lack of respect for our soldiers safety , honor and integrity.
Bush's administration has been the worst destructed criminal administration which has ever existed in our country and the whole d... world.
Public Financing... What a joke.
Go ahead make my day... MCcain is a broken down valise. His Big Brother the Republican 527's are the Gorrilla's in the room. one lil ole group, Freedomwatch has put aside $250 million for an 08 onslaught. The rules have changed...
snip
The group aims to raise and spend approximately $250 million for the 2008 cycle, a vast amount of money they apparently plan to use not only on the presidential election, but to greater effect in numerous House and Senate races throughout the country, where six figures can go a long way.
To review the White House connections: the group is headed by Bradley Blakeman, a former Bush White House official, Mel Sembler, a millionaire former Bush admbassador to Italy, and Ari Fleischer, who serves as the group's spokesman. Much of its support so far has come from Sembler and casino magnate and billionaire Sheldon Adelson, the sixth richest person in the world.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/005103.php
Under no circumstances should the Democrats even consider public financing. The Republicans game the system with 527s and other tricks. The Democrats haven't figured out how to counter that or even come close.
The Democratic candidate should get as many contributions as possible and use every penny to fight back against the Republican slime machine.
Well those with working brains know that McCain wants to tie Obama's hands with this pledge. And I think Freedom Watch already has $45 million doesn't it? The outside groups will crucify the nominee with that money regardless of who is the Democratic nominee; this much we agree on but I wonder why McCain isn't forcing the same pledge on Billary. McCain and Billary have been in sync with the attacks on Obama this week. McCain and the republicans no they are guaranteed a win against Hillary but the opposite is more likely with Obama. Both Hillary and McCain have good motive to work together to knock Obama out. She wants that nomination more than her current riches.
"eg., that uses free markets but does not worship them as religion"
A side question:
I completely agree with the quoted text. Religious faith best describes much of what passes as economic knowledge from the Right and extreme free-marketers. Empirical evidence to the contrary does not seem to disturb their faith-based pronouncements in any way, as in the patently absurd idea that tax cuts actually increase government revenue, while tax raises decrease it (contrary evidence from both the 90's and this decade notwithstanding).
My question is where I can look for good empirical evidence to assess the claims of free-marketers. In particular, I am deeply skeptical of predictions or assertions of fact based on theoretical economics alone. I am also aware that there is a small group of applied economists who try to get at economic realities primarily through empirical research, and not abstract theory.
If anyone has a good primer on applied economics (and/or the limits of empirical evidence for the claims of theoretical economics), I would much appreciate a heads up. Anything along those lines would be helpful -- I'm basically looking for basic reading material that discusses the gap between the claims of theoretical economics and empirical evidence (particularly in the context of things asserted as dogma by the Republicans, like the idea that lowering taxes creates more revenue).
Thanks in advance.
It is a shame that politics has sunk to this low level. I remember in 1968 when a dirty trick had a very black very pregnant black lady walking back in front of the Republican convention carrying a sign that read "Nixon's the one" But then Lee Atwater came to Washington and honed the art.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
