Obama Will Opt Out Of Public Campaign Financing For Election
Declaring that the public campaign financing system is broken, Democratic presumptive Presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has made the announcement expected for a long time that he would opt out of the public financing system and raise all the money on his own.
He made the announcement in a web video to his supporters, effectively saying it’s now put up or shut up time for supporters to finance his campaign since every single cent of it will now be money he must raise on his own.
Since this conflicts with an earlier pledge, expect Obama’s foes to pounce on it and try to turn it into an issue and refer to it as a flip flop in campaign ads. One problem: campaign process and campaign funding mechanism issues have rarely moved mountains in elections.
Here’s his announcement:
How is this being played in the media? It’s an important question because perceptions over the decision will be a piece in the jigsaw. Obama frames this in terms of the “independent” negative campaigning (and often demonizing) 527 groups that provide plausible deniability for candidates who can look the other way or even decry them. He is also arguing that rejecting public financing means his campaign is totally funded by the American people. Will that play?
Here’s some of the media excerpts:
Sen. Barack Obama has switched course on general-election funding, announcing this morning that he would reject public financing and raise every dime for the fall campaign on his own.
The announcement was widely expected. For months, Obama has eased back from an earlier pledge to “pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election,” warning that it could impose unfair constraints.
The decision means Obama will give up $85 million in public money. But it frees him to raise $300 million or more from the 1.5 million-plus donors in his database, giving him an enormous — almost breathtaking — advantage over Sen. John McCain.
With his decision, Mr. Obama became the first candidate of a major party to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals.
Mr. Obama made his announcement in a video message sent to supporters and posted on the Internet. While it was not a surprise — his aides have been hinting that he would take this step for two months — it represented a turnabout from his strong earlier suggestion that he would join the system. Mr. McCain has been a champion of public financing of campaign throughout his career.
….Told on Thursday morning of Mr. Obama’s decision to opt out of public financing, Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain, charged that Mr. Obama had “broken his word.” Mr. Black reacted to the news after a reporter showed him the Obama campaign’s statement on a Blackberry in the lobby of the Chicago hotel where the McCain campaign was staying.
Democrat Barack Obama has said he will not take public financing, allowing him to raise unlimited private funds in his campaign for the US presidency.
His decision means he will forgo more than $80m (£40.5m) that would have been available for him to fight Republican John McCain for the White House.
…Mr Obama has so far raised an unprecedented $265m (£134.5m) in donations in his presidential race, most of it from small donations given over the internet.
This dwarfs the $115m (£58.3m) Mr McCain has so far raised.
But Mr McCain can draw on the deep pockets of the Republican National Committee, which has far more money than the Democratic National Committee, correspondents say.
Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.
By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.
The move was widely expected, following the Illinois senator’s record-shattering fundraising during the nominating contest, and his proven ability to raise unprecedented sums from big donors and small Internet donors alike.
Sen. Obama’s Republican opponent, John McCain, has been much less successful at raising money and the move sets up the likelihood of a big mismatch in money heading into the fall campaign. If Sen. McCain stays in the public financing system, as is expected, he would have about $80 million to spend between the Republican nominating convention in September and the Nov. 4 election. Sen. Obama is expected to be able to raise $200 million for that contest,
Meanwhile, reaction to Obama’s move by weblogs is as would be expected: largely along partisan lines.
For instance, the lively blog Red State has this:
I’m just not sure what to say about this. I shouldn’t be shocked, but somehow it does shock me to see how a candidate for POTUS can be so vapid, and yet still lead in every major poll currently.
Does Barack think we are stupid, or are we just stupid? Time will tell, I guess.
I am very depressed about the future and am perilously close to full blown anxiety here. It just seems so simple. How can we even be considering letting this man have the keys to the WH? How? How? How? Why? Why? Why?
And Democratic Strategist blogger Ed Kilgore has this:
You can expect John McCain to leap on this announcement to suggest that Obama’s flip-flopped on public financing, and is playing the game by the old Washington rules. As evidenced by the nature of his announcement, Obama will likely respond by saying (1) his 2007 statement was general and tentative, and he never once promised McCain he’d accept public financing; (2) public financing is a meaningless reform so long as non-regulated dollars–particularly those spent by 527s–still come from special interests; and (3) Obama’s own internet-based and heavily small-dollar donor base represents a “parallel system” of public financing.
This last argument may actually work better with the public than you might initially think. Taxpayer-funded public financing of political campaigns has never been that popular, even though voters do seem to be worried about the influence of lobbyists. That’s one reason regular folks don’t typically share the aversion of “reformers” to self-funded candidates. So a candidate like Obama who has figured out a way to displace special-interest dollars with tons of small donations from plain citizens may well hit something of a sweet spot in terms of his positioning on campaign finance reform. We’ll know soon enough.
You can read more blog reaction to this as it develops (and more is upcoming) by clicking HERE.
93 Responses to “Obama Will Opt Out Of Public Campaign Financing For Election”
[...] on the left, such as The Gun Toting Liberal, Firedoglake (which still has database issues), and The Moderate Voiceall not only seem to have no problem with Obama lying (and, isn’t 90% of his campaign about [...]
Like Pacatrue, I confess to being conflicted on the whole issue of campaign financing.
Consider ChrisWWW's view: “If a candidate is more popular than another, he or she logically would and should have more resources availabe for campaigning.”
But that only applies when there are lots of small donors submitting donations. The issue Obama himself was addressing in his FIRST take on campaign financing is a real one. In Obama's words: official public financing is “a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.”
This is a sticky wicket for Democrats, as big GOP donors have outgunned them massively in the past. Hence, so many Dems have been behind finance reform. However, when big Dem. fundraisers like Bill Clinton can pull in staggering sums (some of it murky, as many of you here at TMV have admitted, for his library and such) you are in the position of being taken by Satan up on the mountain and shown the kingdoms of the world . . . which can be yours . . . for a price.
Obama is willing to pay that price. But his decision will effectively toast any bipartisan move towards finance reform for the foreseeable future.
And Democrats should bear in mind, Obama is a magical anomaly in his fundraising ability.
You will not have Obama in a few years, and the GOP machine will have recovered from the Bush debacle and will be raising money from the Evangelicals like a house on fire enraged by gay marriage or whatever.
Like Pacatrue, I confess to being conflicted on the whole issue of campaign financing.
Consider ChrisWWW's view: “If a candidate is more popular than another, he or she logically would and should have more resources availabe for campaigning.”
But that only applies when there are lots of small donors submitting donations. The issue Obama himself was addressing in his FIRST take on campaign financing is a real one. In Obama's words: official public financing is “a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.”
This is a sticky wicket for Democrats, as big GOP donors have outgunned them massively in the past. Hence, so many Dems have been behind finance reform. However, when big Dem. fundraisers like Bill Clinton can pull in staggering sums (some of it murky, as many of you here at TMV have admitted, for his library and such) you are in the position of being taken by Satan up on the mountain and shown the kingdoms of the world . . . which can be yours . . . for a price.
Obama is willing to pay that price. But his decision will effectively toast any bipartisan move towards finance reform for the foreseeable future.
And Democrats should bear in mind, Obama is a magical anomaly in his fundraising ability.
You will not have Obama in a few years, and the GOP machine will have recovered from the Bush debacle and will be raising money from the Evangelicals like a house on fire enraged by gay marriage or whatever.
Like Pacatrue, I confess to being conflicted on the whole issue of campaign financing.
Consider ChrisWWW's view: “If a candidate is more popular than another, he or she logically would and should have more resources availabe for campaigning.”
But that only applies when there are lots of small donors submitting donations. The issue Obama himself was addressing in his FIRST take on campaign financing is a real one. In Obama's words: official public financing is “a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.”
This is a sticky wicket for Democrats, as big GOP donors have outgunned them massively in the past. Hence, so many Dems have been behind finance reform. However, when big Dem. fundraisers like Bill Clinton can pull in staggering sums (some of it murky, as many of you here at TMV have admitted, for his library and such) you are in the position of being taken by Satan up on the mountain and shown the kingdoms of the world . . . which can be yours . . . for a price.
Obama is willing to pay that price. But his decision will effectively toast any bipartisan move towards finance reform for the foreseeable future.
And Democrats should bear in mind, Obama is a magical anomaly in his fundraising ability.
You will not have Obama in a few years, and the GOP machine will have recovered from the Bush debacle and will be raising money from the Evangelicals like a house on fire enraged by gay marriage or whatever.
Marlowecan,
Come on. Speaking of selective reading:.
“If campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.”" (an Obama written quote from your comment.)
Please note the word IF, Every time Obama spoke on the subject, there were always IF's and negotations involved. Yours is the video clip appraoch, with no CONTEXT. .
The reelity is that it's impossible to make a full policy statement and explanation in response to short questions.
However, you can't deny that the main theme has always been to break the hold of special interests and lobbyistis .That's the appropriate context, something Obama's detractors seem to abhor.
In that, he has succeedd to a remarkable degree. (not a perfect degree, i hasten to add).
In the meantime, McCain has done everything possible to game the system and to give Obama reason to NOT trust him. The quirky joining of his campaign funds to state and national Republican funds is but one example.Sounds like lessons from DeLay to me.
Have the rules for BOTH candidates to accept public funds been put in place? No, because McCain would never play by Obama's, much more stringent, rules.
The reference to media ads explains the important reason for the IF in the quote.
There needs be a method for curtailing 527 actvoties via ads, and under current law, there is not. The influence candidates could have on that would need to depend on an honor system. What honor system would work for both?
Would you trust McCain? How's he doing on the 'honest debate' part of the campaign? He's pivoting so fast, at times he seems to be arguing with himself.
Marlowecan,
Come on. Speaking of selective reading:.
“If campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.”" (an Obama written quote from your comment.)
Please note the word IF, Every time Obama spoke on the subject, there were always IF's and negotations involved. Yours is the video clip appraoch, with no CONTEXT. .
The reelity is that it's impossible to make a full policy statement and explanation in response to short questions.
However, you can't deny that the main theme has always been to break the hold of special interests and lobbyistis .That's the appropriate context, something Obama's detractors seem to abhor.
In that, he has succeedd to a remarkable degree. (not a perfect degree, i hasten to add).
In the meantime, McCain has done everything possible to game the system and to give Obama reason to NOT trust him. The quirky joining of his campaign funds to state and national Republican funds is but one example.Sounds like lessons from DeLay to me.
Have the rules for BOTH candidates to accept public funds been put in place? No, because McCain would never play by Obama's, much more stringent, rules.
The reference to media ads explains the important reason for the IF in the quote.
There needs be a method for curtailing 527 actvoties via ads, and under current law, there is not. The influence candidates could have on that would need to depend on an honor system. What honor system would work for both?
Would you trust McCain? How's he doing on the 'honest debate' part of the campaign? He's pivoting so fast, at times he seems to be arguing with himself.
Marlowecan,
Come on. Speaking of selective reading:.
“If campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.”" (an Obama written quote from your comment.)
Please note the word IF, Every time Obama spoke on the subject, there were always IF's and negotations involved. Yours is the video clip appraoch, with no CONTEXT. .
The reelity is that it's impossible to make a full policy statement and explanation in response to short questions.
However, you can't deny that the main theme has always been to break the hold of special interests and lobbyistis .That's the appropriate context, something Obama's detractors seem to abhor.
In that, he has succeedd to a remarkable degree. (not a perfect degree, i hasten to add).
In the meantime, McCain has done everything possible to game the system and to give Obama reason to NOT trust him. The quirky joining of his campaign funds to state and national Republican funds is but one example.Sounds like lessons from DeLay to me.
Have the rules for BOTH candidates to accept public funds been put in place? No, because McCain would never play by Obama's, much more stringent, rules.
The reference to media ads explains the important reason for the IF in the quote.
There needs be a method for curtailing 527 actvoties via ads, and under current law, there is not. The influence candidates could have on that would need to depend on an honor system. What honor system would work for both?
Would you trust McCain? How's he doing on the 'honest debate' part of the campaign? He's pivoting so fast, at times he seems to be arguing with himself.
No More Lobbyist!!!!!!
Senator Obama has said many times, “Lobbyist will not run my White House.”
Getting rid of the extremely negative impact of lobbyist is one of the major reasons I support Senator Obama.
McCain has flip-flopped on many things. Yesterday he told the citizens of Missouri about a gas tax holiday he knows Congress will never approve.
Prior to McCain's event in Missouri yesterday, Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said in a conference call that McCain's plan would cost the state 6,000 jobs and $167 million in federal gas tax dollars for Missouri's roadways.
“The people of Missouri can smell a phony deal a mile away,” she said. “Frankly, that’s what John McCain’s gas tax is. He knew it wasn’t going to have any meaningful impact on people’s real pain – our dependence on foreign oil.”
McCaskill said it was “a promise he knew he would never have to deliver on.”
The “Could McCain Have Come Up with a More Ill-Suited Economic Advisor Than Phil Gramm?” is one of many examples for the damage caused by lobbyist specifically gas prices and the subprime housing damage.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/87999/?cID=9…
No More Lobbyist!!!!!!
Senator Obama has said many times, “Lobbyist will not run my White House.”
Getting rid of the extremely negative impact of lobbyist is one of the major reasons I support Senator Obama.
McCain has flip-flopped on many things. Yesterday he told the citizens of Missouri about a gas tax holiday he knows Congress will never approve.
Prior to McCain's event in Missouri yesterday, Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said in a conference call that McCain's plan would cost the state 6,000 jobs and $167 million in federal gas tax dollars for Missouri's roadways.
“The people of Missouri can smell a phony deal a mile away,” she said. “Frankly, that’s what John McCain’s gas tax is. He knew it wasn’t going to have any meaningful impact on people’s real pain – our dependence on foreign oil.”
McCaskill said it was “a promise he knew he would never have to deliver on.”
The “Could McCain Have Come Up with a More Ill-Suited Economic Advisor Than Phil Gramm?” is one of many examples for the damage caused by lobbyist specifically gas prices and the subprime housing damage.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/87999/?cID=9…
No More Lobbyist!!!!!!
Senator Obama has said many times, “Lobbyist will not run my White House.”
Getting rid of the extremely negative impact of lobbyist is one of the major reasons I support Senator Obama.
McCain has flip-flopped on many things. Yesterday he told the citizens of Missouri about a gas tax holiday he knows Congress will never approve.
Prior to McCain's event in Missouri yesterday, Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said in a conference call that McCain's plan would cost the state 6,000 jobs and $167 million in federal gas tax dollars for Missouri's roadways.
“The people of Missouri can smell a phony deal a mile away,” she said. “Frankly, that’s what John McCain’s gas tax is. He knew it wasn’t going to have any meaningful impact on people’s real pain – our dependence on foreign oil.”
McCaskill said it was “a promise he knew he would never have to deliver on.”
The “Could McCain Have Come Up with a More Ill-Suited Economic Advisor Than Phil Gramm?” is one of many examples for the damage caused by lobbyist specifically gas prices and the subprime housing damage.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/87999/?cID=9…
“when there are lots of small donors submitting donations.”
This is another area of faux analysis.
Big donors are defined as those who donate over $200 up to $2300.
Those 'big donors' are often nobodies,who can afford to donate $20 or $30 at a time, as I just heard on the radio. These are not fat cats expecting favors.
When you hear or read 'big donor', don't jump to conclusions. about quid-pro-quo corruption.
Obama has already brought change, if people would only notice..
McCain says things. Obama does things.
“when there are lots of small donors submitting donations.”
This is another area of faux analysis.
Big donors are defined as those who donate over $200 up to $2300.
Those 'big donors' are often nobodies,who can afford to donate $20 or $30 at a time, as I just heard on the radio. These are not fat cats expecting favors.
When you hear or read 'big donor', don't jump to conclusions. about quid-pro-quo corruption.
Obama has already brought change, if people would only notice..
McCain says things. Obama does things.
“when there are lots of small donors submitting donations.”
This is another area of faux analysis.
Big donors are defined as those who donate over $200 up to $2300.
Those 'big donors' are often nobodies,who can afford to donate $20 or $30 at a time, as I just heard on the radio. These are not fat cats expecting favors.
When you hear or read 'big donor', don't jump to conclusions. about quid-pro-quo corruption.
Obama has already brought change, if people would only notice..
McCain says things. Obama does things.
Runasim said: “Please note the word IF, Every time Obama spoke on the subject, there were always IF's and negotations involved.”
Runasim, Obama's above quoted answer to the question if his opponents forego private funding would he, Obama answers without an “if” or a qualifier. He says:
“Yes.”
There is a full stop there.
Obama is doing this because he has a huge fundraising advantage over McCain. I know you really want to believe in his purity of purpose . . . but he is pursuing his political advantage . . . much as any politician would.
I doubt the 527s can be curtailed under the Constitution.
Most rational observers – even in the MSM – concede Sen Obama is going back on his pledge here.
It is a complicated issue, but his response was unequivoal:
“Yes.”
I am reminded of another presidential candidate who made another such unequivocal response: “Read my lips. No . . . new . . . taxes.”
Runasim, should Bush pere be excused from his going back on his pledge on such a complicated issue as national taxation? The American people did not think so.
Were I McCain, I would hammer St. Obama on this . . . again and again. If Obama wants to take his funding advantage, he must pay the price for going back on his word.
Runasim said: “Please note the word IF, Every time Obama spoke on the subject, there were always IF's and negotations involved.”
Runasim, Obama's above quoted answer to the question if his opponents forego private funding would he, Obama answers without an “if” or a qualifier. He says:
“Yes.”
There is a full stop there.
Obama is doing this because he has a huge fundraising advantage over McCain. I know you really want to believe in his purity of purpose . . . but he is pursuing his political advantage . . . much as any politician would.
I doubt the 527s can be curtailed under the Constitution.
Most rational observers – even in the MSM – concede Sen Obama is going back on his pledge here.
It is a complicated issue, but his response was unequivoal:
“Yes.”
I am reminded of another presidential candidate who made another such unequivocal response: “Read my lips. No . . . new . . . taxes.”
Runasim, should Bush pere be excused from his going back on his pledge on such a complicated issue as national taxation? The American people did not think so.
Were I McCain, I would hammer St. Obama on this . . . again and again. If Obama wants to take his funding advantage, he must pay the price for going back on his word.
Runasim said: “Please note the word IF, Every time Obama spoke on the subject, there were always IF's and negotations involved.”
Runasim, Obama's above quoted answer to the question if his opponents forego private funding would he, Obama answers without an “if” or a qualifier. He says:
“Yes.”
There is a full stop there.
Obama is doing this because he has a huge fundraising advantage over McCain. I know you really want to believe in his purity of purpose . . . but he is pursuing his political advantage . . . much as any politician would.
I doubt the 527s can be curtailed under the Constitution.
Most rational observers – even in the MSM – concede Sen Obama is going back on his pledge here.
It is a complicated issue, but his response was unequivoal:
“Yes.”
I am reminded of another presidential candidate who made another such unequivocal response: “Read my lips. No . . . new . . . taxes.”
Runasim, should Bush pere be excused from his going back on his pledge on such a complicated issue as national taxation? The American people did not think so.
Were I McCain, I would hammer St. Obama on this . . . again and again. If Obama wants to take his funding advantage, he must pay the price for going back on his word.
Runasim: “This is another area of faux analysis.
Big donors are defined as those who donate over $200 up to $2300.”
Actually, no. Big donors can channel money through lots of small donors. These are corporate leaders and lobbyists who make evading financing laws a daily business.
Recall that Asian chap who donated staggering amounts to HRC, in the names of some people who were lifetime GOP supporters. HRC ended up returning those donations to charity, and the chap is up on charges at the moment.
This is what Obama was speaking of when he warned of moneyed interests. He has gotten a lot of money from small supporters . . . but now increasingly from K Street lobbyists.
Runasim: “This is another area of faux analysis.
Big donors are defined as those who donate over $200 up to $2300.”
Actually, no. Big donors can channel money through lots of small donors. These are corporate leaders and lobbyists who make evading financing laws a daily business.
Recall that Asian chap who donated staggering amounts to HRC, in the names of some people who were lifetime GOP supporters. HRC ended up returning those donations to charity, and the chap is up on charges at the moment.
This is what Obama was speaking of when he warned of moneyed interests. He has gotten a lot of money from small supporters . . . but now increasingly from K Street lobbyists.
Runasim: “This is another area of faux analysis.
Big donors are defined as those who donate over $200 up to $2300.”
Actually, no. Big donors can channel money through lots of small donors. These are corporate leaders and lobbyists who make evading financing laws a daily business.
Recall that Asian chap who donated staggering amounts to HRC, in the names of some people who were lifetime GOP supporters. HRC ended up returning those donations to charity, and the chap is up on charges at the moment.
This is what Obama was speaking of when he warned of moneyed interests. He has gotten a lot of money from small supporters . . . but now increasingly from K Street lobbyists.
Marlowecan, wasn't the “full stop yes”, though, an answer to a questionaire? If so, it's not like there was any option to qualify the full conditions of yes. You circle the choices you are given or you don't circle. And so, to know his full position, you'd have to look at more statements than that.
Regardless, this might be an error on Obama's part for the long term, as even Feingold has said. If you real think that public financing is better for elections in general, then you've hurt your long-term cause by making an exception for yourself.
I actually remain concerned about the amount of money being raised whether it is from small donors, given voluntarily or not. One could take the 300 million or so between Obama and McCain and build 20 to 30 schools in Chicago or Phoenix. And yet here it's all going to buy TV ads and pay consultants.
Of course, it's still less than the box office receipts for Iron Man.
Marlowecan, wasn't the “full stop yes”, though, an answer to a questionaire? If so, it's not like there was any option to qualify the full conditions of yes. You circle the choices you are given or you don't circle. And so, to know his full position, you'd have to look at more statements than that.
Regardless, this might be an error on Obama's part for the long term, as even Feingold has said. If you real think that public financing is better for elections in general, then you've hurt your long-term cause by making an exception for yourself.
I actually remain concerned about the amount of money being raised whether it is from small donors, given voluntarily or not. One could take the 300 million or so between Obama and McCain and build 20 to 30 schools in Chicago or Phoenix. And yet here it's all going to buy TV ads and pay consultants.
Of course, it's still less than the box office receipts for Iron Man.
Marlowecan, wasn't the “full stop yes”, though, an answer to a questionaire? If so, it's not like there was any option to qualify the full conditions of yes. You circle the choices you are given or you don't circle. And so, to know his full position, you'd have to look at more statements than that.
Regardless, this might be an error on Obama's part for the long term, as even Feingold has said. If you real think that public financing is better for elections in general, then you've hurt your long-term cause by making an exception for yourself.
I actually remain concerned about the amount of money being raised whether it is from small donors, given voluntarily or not. One could take the 300 million or so between Obama and McCain and build 20 to 30 schools in Chicago or Phoenix. And yet here it's all going to buy TV ads and pay consultants.
Of course, it's still less than the box office receipts for Iron Man.
Marlowecan,
A.
“Actually, no. Big donors can channel money through lots of small donors. These are corporate leaders and lobbyists who make evading financing laws a daily business. “
Yes, they can, but to what degree are they doing that?
Another commenter here went on for several days about foreighners being able to donate through PayPal (even though PayPal payments are not anonymous)..
Some could funnel money to any campaign by delivering cash to an intermediary.
Anything can happen. There are no fool proof rules.
However, in order to make a valid accusation, the accuser is obligated to provide proof that a possibilliy is an acuality, at least to some degree.
It's possible that Marlowecan is actually a female jihadist. Should it up to you to prove me wrong?
—-
B.
Re: yes. Full stop.
Again, Even 'yes' has context.
Do I support public transport? Yes. Full stop.
Do I think it's financially feasable in rural areas? No.
If conditions change to make public transport affordabe everywehere, would I support it? Yes. Full stop.
—————-
You talk about hammering and such. The methods of politics is exactly what I hate most.
We'd be a lot better off if we discussed policies in detal rather than hammering with isolated excerpts. It's misleading and leads to very bad policies
Marlowecan,
A.
“Actually, no. Big donors can channel money through lots of small donors. These are corporate leaders and lobbyists who make evading financing laws a daily business. “
Yes, they can, but to what degree are they doing that?
Another commenter here went on for several days about foreighners being able to donate through PayPal (even though PayPal payments are not anonymous)..
Some could funnel money to any campaign by delivering cash to an intermediary.
Anything can happen. There are no fool proof rules.
However, in order to make a valid accusation, the accuser is obligated to provide proof that a possibilliy is an acuality, at least to some degree.
It's possible that Marlowecan is actually a female jihadist. Should it up to you to prove me wrong?
—-
B.
Re: yes. Full stop.
Again, Even 'yes' has context.
Do I support public transport? Yes. Full stop.
Do I think it's financially feasable in rural areas? No.
If conditions change to make public transport affordabe everywehere, would I support it? Yes. Full stop.
—————-
You talk about hammering and such. The methods of politics is exactly what I hate most.
We'd be a lot better off if we discussed policies in detal rather than hammering with isolated excerpts. It's misleading and leads to very bad policies
Marlowecan,
A.
“Actually, no. Big donors can channel money through lots of small donors. These are corporate leaders and lobbyists who make evading financing laws a daily business. “
Yes, they can, but to what degree are they doing that?
Another commenter here went on for several days about foreighners being able to donate through PayPal (even though PayPal payments are not anonymous)..
Some could funnel money to any campaign by delivering cash to an intermediary.
Anything can happen. There are no fool proof rules.
However, in order to make a valid accusation, the accuser is obligated to provide proof that a possibilliy is an acuality, at least to some degree.
It's possible that Marlowecan is actually a female jihadist. Should it up to you to prove me wrong?
—-
B.
Re: yes. Full stop.
Again, Even 'yes' has context.
Do I support public transport? Yes. Full stop.
Do I think it's financially feasable in rural areas? No.
If conditions change to make public transport affordabe everywehere, would I support it? Yes. Full stop.
—————-
You talk about hammering and such. The methods of politics is exactly what I hate most.
We'd be a lot better off if we discussed policies in detal rather than hammering with isolated excerpts. It's misleading and leads to very bad policies
Did the Messiah lie? Horrors?
(Where's all that money coming from? Soros? K Street? Traditional Dem dinosaur interest groups looking to a return of their influence and the truly failed policies of the past, in the name of “change”? This campaign is getting more and more interesting.)
Did the Messiah lie? Horrors?
(Where's all that money coming from? Soros? K Street? Traditional Dem dinosaur interest groups looking to a return of their influence and the truly failed policies of the past, in the name of “change”? This campaign is getting more and more interesting.)
Did the Messiah lie? Horrors?
(Where's all that money coming from? Soros? K Street? Traditional Dem dinosaur interest groups looking to a return of their influence and the truly failed policies of the past, in the name of “change”? This campaign is getting more and more interesting.)
I suspect many who object to concern about Iranian diversion of nuclear fuel from peaceful to other uses also object to concern about diversion of, say, union dues to the Obama campaign.
I suspect many who object to concern about Iranian diversion of nuclear fuel from peaceful to other uses also object to concern about diversion of, say, union dues to the Obama campaign.
I suspect many who object to concern about Iranian diversion of nuclear fuel from peaceful to other uses also object to concern about diversion of, say, union dues to the Obama campaign.
Obama has stated (and no one has one shred of proof that it isn't so) that he and his campaign have stated unequivocally to their supporters that they do not want anyone who gives money to them to help fund outside groups that make make attacks on his opponents. McCain simply says that he can't control outside groups and therefore apparently has no interest in trying. It is widely known that the people who backed the Swift Boaters and similar groups are already gearing up. Gee, I wonder why Obama's campaign thinks they'll need lots of money? Possibly to reply strongly and repeatedly when attacked? Just look at DLS and Marlowecan, typical modern conservatives.
Obama has stated (and no one has one shred of proof that it isn't so) that he and his campaign have stated unequivocally to their supporters that they do not want anyone who gives money to them to help fund outside groups that make make attacks on his opponents. McCain simply says that he can't control outside groups and therefore apparently has no interest in trying. It is widely known that the people who backed the Swift Boaters and similar groups are already gearing up. Gee, I wonder why Obama's campaign thinks they'll need lots of money? Possibly to reply strongly and repeatedly when attacked? Just look at DLS and Marlowecan, typical modern conservatives.
Obama has stated (and no one has one shred of proof that it isn't so) that he and his campaign have stated unequivocally to their supporters that they do not want anyone who gives money to them to help fund outside groups that make make attacks on his opponents. McCain simply says that he can't control outside groups and therefore apparently has no interest in trying. It is widely known that the people who backed the Swift Boaters and similar groups are already gearing up. Gee, I wonder why Obama's campaign thinks they'll need lots of money? Possibly to reply strongly and repeatedly when attacked? Just look at DLS and Marlowecan, typical modern conservatives.
So.
A politician who cut his political teeth in the wards of the bare knuckle Chicago Democratic political machine, turns out to be just another politician who will say whatever he needs to say to get votes and do whatever is politically expedient to get elected.
Huh.
Who would’ve thunk it?
So.
A politician who cut his political teeth in the wards of the bare knuckle Chicago Democratic political machine, turns out to be just another politician who will say whatever he needs to say to get votes and do whatever is politically expedient to get elected.
Huh.
Who would’ve thunk it?
So.
A politician who cut his political teeth in the wards of the bare knuckle Chicago Democratic political machine, turns out to be just another politician who will say whatever he needs to say to get votes and do whatever is politically expedient to get elected.
Huh.
Who would’ve thunk it?
I am absolutely certain that Obama meant to “opt in” the public financing system if he and his Republican counterpart (McCain, as it turns out) could come to an agreement on it. What is not clear to me is whether any discussions (or negotiations) have been underway. There is nothing that I see at this time that there was any agreement.
Having said that I have a couple other thoughts…
For McCain, this situation is “Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.” Meaning (for heads) if Obama did opt in, then McCain would win because Obama would have less money to spend and McCain and the Reps. have all those 527s. For tails… if Obama opts out of public financing, then McCain can paint Obama as a flip flopper (though McCain should really speak…..).
I think the spirit of campaign finance is to take away special interest money/power. So I think what Obama has done is put the power into the hands of the people.
I'd like to remind everyone that just after Obama “officially” became the presumptive nominee after the last contest, one if the first things he did was, prohibit the Democratic National Committee from accepting money from federal lobbyists or political action committees.
I mean isn't this what we want? Isn't accepting money only from individuals true public finance?
I never thought I'd see the day that the GOP, the party of “big money” and wealthy donors, was actually hurting for donations. George Bush really does have a legacy!
I am absolutely certain that Obama meant to “opt in” the public financing system if he and his Republican counterpart (McCain, as it turns out) could come to an agreement on it. What is not clear to me is whether any discussions (or negotiations) have been underway. There is nothing that I see at this time that there was any agreement.
Having said that I have a couple other thoughts…
For McCain, this situation is “Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.” Meaning (for heads) if Obama did opt in, then McCain would win because Obama would have less money to spend and McCain and the Reps. have all those 527s. For tails… if Obama opts out of public financing, then McCain can paint Obama as a flip flopper (though McCain should really speak…..).
I think the spirit of campaign finance is to take away special interest money/power. So I think what Obama has done is put the power into the hands of the people.
I'd like to remind everyone that just after Obama “officially” became the presumptive nominee after the last contest, one if the first things he did was, prohibit the Democratic National Committee from accepting money from federal lobbyists or political action committees.
I mean isn't this what we want? Isn't accepting money only from individuals true public finance?
I never thought I'd see the day that the GOP, the party of “big money” and wealthy donors, was actually hurting for donations. George Bush really does have a legacy!
I am absolutely certain that Obama meant to “opt in” the public financing system if he and his Republican counterpart (McCain, as it turns out) could come to an agreement on it. What is not clear to me is whether any discussions (or negotiations) have been underway. There is nothing that I see at this time that there was any agreement.
Having said that I have a couple other thoughts…
For McCain, this situation is “Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.” Meaning (for heads) if Obama did opt in, then McCain would win because Obama would have less money to spend and McCain and the Reps. have all those 527s. For tails… if Obama opts out of public financing, then McCain can paint Obama as a flip flopper (though McCain should really speak…..).
I think the spirit of campaign finance is to take away special interest money/power. So I think what Obama has done is put the power into the hands of the people.
I'd like to remind everyone that just after Obama “officially” became the presumptive nominee after the last contest, one if the first things he did was, prohibit the Democratic National Committee from accepting money from federal lobbyists or political action committees.
I mean isn't this what we want? Isn't accepting money only from individuals true public finance?
I never thought I'd see the day that the GOP, the party of “big money” and wealthy donors, was actually hurting for donations. George Bush really does have a legacy!
Silicon Valley is one of the main bastions of support for Obama, it is where a lot of the largest contributors come from, and more importantly, the influencers who can “network” and get thousands of people on Facebook or Twitter to flashmob and crowdsource and hivemind and all those tekkie-wiki new media things and appear as a wealthy and powerful new lobby.
Yes, lobby. It is not sanctified as “authentic democracy of massive grassroots” by being online. It is not cleansed merely by being smaller contributions by many. It's a lobby, pure and simple — nothing new. Let's not get overly giddy about it.
And some very big questions are raised when this lobby doesn't have to fall under the scrutiny that it would if under public financing.
How will the public even be able to scrutinize how all these Facebooked and Twittered millions are used in attack ads? They *do* go to Youtubing ads and the massive distribution of memes on all the email lists, blogs, news groups, etc. So how can you monitor something like that? That's what they're counting on — under the guise of “democracy” in fact becoming less transparent because they are dispersed.
Lobbyists don't cease become lobbyists just because they are 20-something, have i-Phones, and donate $2000 instead of $200,000, bundled on a blog or Second Life island instead of in a Manhattan penthouse. Netroots are not grassroots.
Silicon Valley is one of the main bastions of support for Obama, it is where a lot of the largest contributors come from, and more importantly, the influencers who can “network” and get thousands of people on Facebook or Twitter to flashmob and crowdsource and hivemind and all those tekkie-wiki new media things and appear as a wealthy and powerful new lobby.
Yes, lobby. It is not sanctified as “authentic democracy of massive grassroots” by being online. It is not cleansed merely by being smaller contributions by many. It's a lobby, pure and simple — nothing new. Let's not get overly giddy about it.
And some very big questions are raised when this lobby doesn't have to fall under the scrutiny that it would if under public financing.
How will the public even be able to scrutinize how all these Facebooked and Twittered millions are used in attack ads? They *do* go to Youtubing ads and the massive distribution of memes on all the email lists, blogs, news groups, etc. So how can you monitor something like that? That's what they're counting on — under the guise of “democracy” in fact becoming less transparent because they are dispersed.
Lobbyists don't cease become lobbyists just because they are 20-something, have i-Phones, and donate $2000 instead of $200,000, bundled on a blog or Second Life island instead of in a Manhattan penthouse. Netroots are not grassroots.
Silicon Valley is one of the main bastions of support for Obama, it is where a lot of the largest contributors come from, and more importantly, the influencers who can “network” and get thousands of people on Facebook or Twitter to flashmob and crowdsource and hivemind and all those tekkie-wiki new media things and appear as a wealthy and powerful new lobby.
Yes, lobby. It is not sanctified as “authentic democracy of massive grassroots” by being online. It is not cleansed merely by being smaller contributions by many. It's a lobby, pure and simple — nothing new. Let's not get overly giddy about it.
And some very big questions are raised when this lobby doesn't have to fall under the scrutiny that it would if under public financing.
How will the public even be able to scrutinize how all these Facebooked and Twittered millions are used in attack ads? They *do* go to Youtubing ads and the massive distribution of memes on all the email lists, blogs, news groups, etc. So how can you monitor something like that? That's what they're counting on — under the guise of “democracy” in fact becoming less transparent because they are dispersed.
Lobbyists don't cease become lobbyists just because they are 20-something, have i-Phones, and donate $2000 instead of $200,000, bundled on a blog or Second Life island instead of in a Manhattan penthouse. Netroots are not grassroots.