Obama’s Position on Campaign Finance

I've been dubious about the usefulness of campaign finance reform since the Swift-Boaters did their thing in 2004. So I was a little surprised to read that it has had some practical success.

In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.

I'd love to know more about all this, especially the "mechanism to account for outside spending".

Why the big push for public financing while the Republican party is in full collapse and the Democratic Party looks to become, the one dominate party. Is there a desire of some progressives to control who the candidates are so much that they are willing to throw the First Amendment away?

It is hard to talk about the need for funding raising and the effects of money when there are over 175 Congressmen who are running for re-election unoppposed. All public financing does is move that number from 175 to 275.

Remember, in Maine where it was been tried, there are term limits and the legislators are part time. Given that politics is a full time profession in DC and there are no term limits, public financing is the progressive activist full employment act.

Obama's speech (October, 2002):

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Let's turn the page,

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

SD you bring up one good point, term limits. I think that campaign finance reform, really deep and serious reform is necessary, but I think that term limits are also an absolute must. This would require a huge reworking of the system, based on seniority in so many cases, but our incumbency rate is absurdly high and a sign of a sick system. Whatever the limit, there has to be one. Sen. Stephens and Sen Byrd need to go play some checkers, really.

Not a bad approach to getting out of a sticky situation. If McCain spends cash before the Dem primary is resolved, it creates an out for Obama.

I don't believe there is a chance that public funds will be used.

I still say it wont matter. McCain doesn't have a prayer in a contest vs. Obama.

If the Dem contest drags on, how is it fair for McCain to be limited in his spending while Obama is free to spend in his contest against Hillary? Any limits that are agreed to should begin only when both contests are settled.

I'll add to my previous comment- that construct would particularly be absurd since Obama has clearly already started directing his comments toward McCain, and he's been campaigning against the GOP establishment throughout the entire primary season. It's ridiculous to say that he should be able to continue spending his money on those kinds of messages while McCain should be hamstrung to respond or make his own arguments against Obama, simply because there's still another viable candidate on the Dem side.

Hasn't McCain been directing his own comments toward Obama?

Hasn't McCain been campaigning against the Democrats the whole primary season?

loveourcountry: thanks for Obama's speech. It's really great.

Yes, both Obama and McCain, being politicians, have been taking swipes at each other. And this is a surprise because....? And don't give me any nonsense that this behavior is off limits because we're still in the primary season....

On campaign finance: well it seems that McCain already flip-flopped on public finance in the primary....

(From a posting that Paul Silver did on Feb. 13- (actually the posting starts by quoting The American Prospect):

The deed is done. John McCain, having been a participant in the presidential public financing system for eight months, has now declined the money for which he qualified, and declared himself free to spend an unlimited amount of private money between now and the convention, much of which will effectively be used to fight the general election. The great reformer has effectively managed to have it both ways, having the money available to repay a loan if his campaign didn’t take off in New Hampshire, but being able to avoid the limits if it did.

Here's the link to Paul's post (referenced above):

http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blo...

So it seems that McCain has already flip-flopped in the primary once he knew he could raise more money if he weren't hampered by the public financing system. If he's changed his mind in the middle of the primary, will he change his mind in the middle of the general election?

Today's posting shows that Obama is willing to accept public financing for the general election (which means $85 million for each of the candidates for the two months before the Nov. vote) as long as McCain accepts the limits. It strikes me that Obama can only win from this. Obama has made the offer now it's McCain's to decline (or accept). If McCain decline, this will give Obama more ammunition in the general election about McCain's continued (first primary, then general) flip-flopping on this. If McCain and Obama accept this sort of financing, then to get maximum exposure (assuming you can't spend trillions on TV ads) McCain will be forced to debate Obama often. I wonder who would win in such a debate....

It would actually be good for the country to see these debates because O and M stand for different things and the country can have a good discussion over where the country should go.

As far as the money for ads from 527s... I'm not sure there's anyway around that. Each candidate can claim they don't have control over the groups that put out these sorts of ads. I also imagine Obama wants to specifically address that issue in any eventual agreement he makes with McCain in accepting campaign finance.

General article on campaign finance from Common Cause:

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1...

There's nothing wrong with either of them beginning to direct their campaign toward the other- but that means that the general election has begun. Thus Obama's argument is negated; he can't have it both ways. He's using the fact that his primary is still ongoing as a convenient excuse to continue using private funds (which means McCain will do the same) while using some of those funds to campaign against McCain- and to say that if McCain uses any private funds, he's breaking the public fund pledge, which will then be Obama's excuse to break his.

C Stanley--

I don't know if you or anyone else is sill reading this thread, but your argument seems very circular. If the general election has begun for one party, how can you say it hasn't begun for both?

You're saying (I think) that McCain's behavior is legitimate and it's very legitimacy is enabling Obama to behave otherwise?

I don't think McCain has actually gotten the required number of delegates, so isn't the Republican primary season still in effect?

McCain won't actually get the nomination until the convention, however safe it is to presume he's going to be the nominee.

Any possibility of clarity?