Obama's Opt-Out of Public Financing Will Increase the Odds of True Public Financing for All Federal Races

As a life-long advocate for public financing of elections, I believe that Barack Obama's decision not to participate in the current presidential public finance system will advance the day when we will finally have a true system of public financing for all federal races. Here's why:

* The simple fact is that we're not going to get a real system of public financing for all federal races without a Democratic president and strong Democratic majorities in Congress. As president, McCain might tinker around the edges of campaign finance reform, but real reform isn't going to happen unless the winds of change really sweep through Washington. We need an overwhelming Democratic victory to set the stage for real reform that takes big money out of politics.

His massive small donor fundraising base allows Obama to compete in red and purple states around the country. It will not only boost his own chances of election, but increase the number of Democrats who are elected to Congress as well. And it materially increases the odds of a decisive Democratic victory that will allow us to break through the partisan gridlock of the last two decades.

* Obama's decision frames the issue of public financing correctly. We don't need public financing to limit the amount of money spent on political organizing or communication. The problem isn't that we spend too much as a society on politics -- on the democratic process that determines our future. As a society, we spend a great deal less on political communication than on marketing for tooth paste or soft drinks.

The problem isn't the amount of money in politics, it's the source of the money. Our goal shouldn't be to keep money out of politics -- but rather to keep big money out of politics. Public financing is critical to prevent big corporations and the wealthy from continuing their domination of what might otherwise be a truly democratic political system. Public financing should be about preventing plutocracy and facilitating democracy. Political communication, grassroots organization, door to door canvassing, political rallies all cost money -- but they are critical for engaging everyday people in the political process. Let's face it, the long heated, expensive, primary battle has engaged more people in politics today than in decades.

A true system of public financing would reward campaigns that raise small donations from everyday people like the million and a half Internet Obama donors. Such a system might have an six to one or eight to one match for all small donations of under $200 and prohibit larger contributions. A true system of public financing would encourage grass roots organizing and simultaneously keep the wealthy from calling the political shots.

* Obama's decision will do a lot to foster bi-partisan support for real public financing. For decades the Republicans -- who are now yelping about Obama's decision -- have done everything in their power to oppose public financing of elections. After all, their major constituencies are big corporations and the wealthy. Even after campaign giving limits and the current system of pubic financing for presidential campaigns were passed after the Watergate scandals, the Republicans could rest easy. They could evade the system of limits through networks of right wing independent organizations like the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" or "Freedom's Watch" that could raise unlimited amounts of money from gazillionaires. Of course any system that limits total spending on a presidential race encourages these kinds of end runs for both parties.

There will be a whole lot more interest among Republicans in a system of public financing after Obama wallops them in fundraising this fall. That whipping will cause a lot of Republican attitude adjustment. There is nothing that could do more to advance the day when we pass a true system of public financing for the presidency, house and senate.

Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.

Comments

[Mover]

FYI: Public financing ARE funded by all Americans, and zero dollars from special interest groups. Barack doesn't seem to understand this.

The Obama web page states: "Our opponents are dedicated to manipulating this broken system to raise as much money as possible -- and they've proven they are very good at it.
To compete, Barack has decided to keep putting his faith in ordinary people like you giving only what you can afford."

The fact is that Barack has raised $287 Million dollars, more than twice as much as McCain at $114 million to date. He's not hurting for money at all.

By rejecting public financing, he gets to raise unlimited amounts of dollars. Talk about buying an election. This will be a perfect example.

Talk about greedy. WOW.

There is nothing fair about this flip flop.

[Dunnage]

Well, people are "yelping" because Obama said one thing and did another. The Swift Boat explanation is BS and we all know it. That was possible when he made his pledge.

As far as this leading to public financing - thc content is certainly rising. But then we can view Obama breaking a pledge as a public service. Gotta love it.

Can't we just use the truth: broke a pledge for a supposed money advantage. Also know as politics as usual.

[ProAmericanLobbyist]

FEC stats show Obama getting 46% from under $200 donors and only 23% from over $2000 donors.

He is also approaching $300 Million.

The American People are funding their candidate with their money. This is freedom of speech being practiced by We the People.

The under $200 voter has bought into this election and are making their contribution to elect THEIR President!

[JDBAZ]

I do not agree that political contributions constitute free speech protected by the constitution; nevertheless the courts have said so. However, speaking at a level no greater than $200 per speaker certainly sounds reasonable. I do not think any court would hold that you have the right to stand in a residential area screaming your political thoughts; this could be construed as an analogous scenario.

[johnb3950]

You said "...current system of PUBIC financing ..."

Well, you are right in a sense - there are plenty of whores involved, though what they sell is not sex but other favors...

[kalidescopebrain]

Excellent Article! I'm sick of the evil Senator Mitch McConnel R-KY and the packed supreme court, who dare call something (tv time) that can cost millions of dollars a minute during Super Bowl "free speech", and not to be limited! We need publicly supported campaigns and free air time, like they have in England! And limits on special interest advertising! I'm particularly galled by the Oil companies advertising promoting the idea that their record profits are good for my pension fund, like I'm somehow culpable in their rip-off of American motorists! I've also had it up to here with the drug companies!

[closerthanuthink]

"The only reason the GOP (or anybody!) is moaning as loudly as they are: (1) they didn't do it first, and (2) they didn't do it first!" (pure gold from Archieboy over at Mojo!) This is politics...a blood sport to say the least. So WAKE UP!!! Why should I (or you) CARE the MSMcains are offended? Do YOU really beleive he's betrayed YOU? "Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money" cries Factcheck.org via Newsweek! Big Deal! "Why would (or should) he deliberately limit himself when he would be absolutely foolish to do so"? When for the first time in American history it might actually be possible for a candidate to get the bulk of his funding from his SUPPORTERS - a candidacy financed by his base?!? "You want Change? HERE'S CHANGE! He broke away from a system full of loopholes and back doors where all kinds of over-the-limit money comes through under the table" (more Archie -explains the telecom ho-ha too...BIG picture, people, BIG picture!).
Now it's all out in the open. He's trusting his followers to finance his run for the presidency...and we've proven we can do it! That's REAL CHANGE, which he has promised all along. And whats with the "oh if Hillary had done this..."! Gimme a break; the stakes are TOOOO high! Move.on to elect the presumptive democratic nominee...stand up and be counted!

[egal]

Actually, the republicans are also peeved that they COULDN'T do this; the "little people" just don't support their candidate enough. The same goes for Hillary.

[PigLipstick]

The Republicans have a problem that the Democrats don't have to contend with, they are competing with the Jerry Faldwell bunch that is squeezing religious contributions out of their constituency. However, since this group tends to blindly march to the polls every election season to vote for their favorite right-wing hypocrite, the Republicans really don't need that much campaign money !

[NeoTrots]

He meant he took it for granted until he was deprived of it. She meant she had some real problems with the U.S. of A. in the past. These are different statements, but both are completely understandable sentiments, considering where these two people are respectively coming from. However, a political party whose credo is "my country is always right" (good, great, always makes me proud, etc.) - and which demonizes anyone who would ever question anything the country has done - is a very dangerous thing. Knee-jerk patriots.

[kevinw]

Man you need to stay out of the shrooms man. It is messing up your thinking. How in the world would promising to participate in Public Financing, when you are not sure how your fundraising will go and then opting out when you find out you are almost printing money, going to convince people that there is a need for public financing. It shows that we as progressives were for balancing the playing field when the Repubs out raised us in money. We are for "money as free speech" now that we are flush with cash. It maikes sense to use the money to win. It is embarrassing to have people trying to make going against a pledge for political advantage, some noble effort. The original pledge was part of the transcendent candidate shtick. The pledge should not have been made. I have been in favor of public financing. This will probably kill it.

[Javani]

"As a life-long advocate for public financing of elections, I believe that Barack Obama’s decision not to participate in the current presidential public finance system will advance the day when we will finally have a true system of public financing for all federal races."

Kevin, no psychedelic drug is powerful enough to cause a person to think that backflip is logical and to emboss it onto the internet forever, and with his name attached. No drug can do that, only religion. Obamamessiahism.

[schicklett3]

McCain is strangling over this - he knows Senator Obama will raise millions of dollars legally and honestly, and all McCain and his henchmen can come up with (ad nauseum) is that Obama isn't trustworthy. It's simply laughable, John, simply laughable. Whiney bunch of Republicans. LOL

[BARRISTER]

Imagine; Keating 5 McCain saying that someone isn't trustworthy. Imagine that!!

[mick3]

Tiny note. I think the fist bump should be the coming thing, if we still, after thousands of years of so-called civilization, need to demonstrate that we have no weapon in our hand, e.g., the handshake. Other than that, the handshake is pretty much all lose:lose. For one thing, it's so insanitary. Imagine if you're a public person and had to shake hands with hundreds of people whose hands have been god knows where. Eeyoo! Then think of the useless wear and tear on such hands. Shouldn't happen. I, myself, have damaged hands from a massive attack of rheumatoid arthritis. I can't even clap with one hand, although the hands seem to be okay to others. I have had some really nasty handshakes from macho land. Personally, I am tired of explaining that I don't shake hands. I'd rather that people who insist on it explain why.

So, if not a fist bump, which at least saves having someone wiping his fingers on your palm, howzabout the Indian namaste. So easy, so courteous.

[donaleab]

The answer for me is simple. McCain will rely on 527's and PAC's to enhance his campaign. The republicans always rely on big money. Obama has put together a coalition of millions of voters, many like myself giving only$10.00. We the people are financing his campaign.

[factanonverba]

Not quite. Less than 30% of his campaign contributions come from donors under $500. Less than 20% under $200. And he does take money from lobbyists. You just refuse to see the game he plays.

http://www.bythefault.com/2008/06/06/obama-to-lobbyists-use-the-back-door-please/

[XME]

And you just refuse to see one of the main points mentioned by donaleab: McCain will rely on 527's...which is EXACTLY what he will do (and what every Republican has done in recent years).

[Artos]

What passes for Public financing is not what I think of as public financing. The only money that should be allowed for the actual presidential elections is the money that is in the Federal Public Financing chest. We should be required to check that spot on our tax forms and that money should be the only money spent on elections. The idea that we don't spend that much money on elections is ridiculous. Each candidate for a political office should get a graduated sum of monies distributed to them and they can spend it for election purposes howsoever it suits them as long as it falls within the legal parameters. If they are poor money managers we would know about it. As for getting media attention, the media sources should be required by law to issue a percentage of their time and resources to be made available to each candidate equally. Their should be a given number of mandatory debates hosted only by non partisan organizations during the campaign period. That should be plenty and it will keep things honest.

[JAB20]

Obama's decision could help further the cause of public financing. Right now he had to opt out. Otherwise the rich Swiftboaters would have trumped the fifty-dollar givers.

[Mk26gmls]

Has anyone here seen Newsweek article on this?

Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142399

[Pamela1961]

Thanks for the link. Obama has taken money from PACs and continues to; http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/21/pac_tries_new_tactic_to_boost_obama_run/

He also gets money from oil and energy companies:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

Google to your hearts content and find out the truth about why Obama is lying when he said he does not take money from PACs, Energy companies and other corporations.