« McCain Campaign Deja Vu? Recycled Hillary Clinton Attack Lines
The IRS Visits Al Sharpton »



Obama Will Opt Out Of Public Campaign Financing For Election

June 19th, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief


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:

–The Washington Post:

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.

–New York Times:

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.

–The BBC:

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.

–Philadelphia Inquirer:

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 Wall Street Journal:

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.



This entry was posted on Thursday, June 19th, 2008 at 8:26 am and is filed under Democratic Party, Political Finance, Campaign Reform, Republican Party, Newsweek Blogitics, Democracy, Elections, 2008 Elections, Republicans, Barack Obama, John McCain, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 34 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Wow, where is ALL THAT MONEY coming from for Obama??

    Let's see... *mulls over checklist*

    1. Big/Media/GOP/Big Oil handled Obama with kid gloves during the primaries even though is past is riddled with holes like swiss cheese. Weird, but OK. Check.

    2. Most of Obama's "online support" comes from less established people under 30 years old...Weird, but OK. Check.

    3. Now he has so much money that he doesn' t need the kick from Uncle Sam. Wow, those 20-somethings sure are doing well in our lousy economy...

    Hmmm....

    Maybe we should audit Obama's campaign contributions, now? I'm thinking there's something fishy about them. It's fair. After all he audited every single signature of all four minority progressive candidates that ran against him in the Chicago election http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-07... in order to systematically eliminate them from competition to run unopposed...

    I'd like to see where all those Jane and John Does live, their home addresses, occupations and the like. Let's see if they match reality.
    • ^
    • v
    Shihouette, I am one of those small donors. My husband and I donate between 20 to 50 a month. And with so many of us doing so, and believe me there are an awful lot of us donating, Obama is going to make the money. and that is where it is coming from. Many of us donate every month.
    As for him for going the public financing I say:
    Heck, if I was getting 20 to 60 million a month from my small donors I'd forego the public financing as well and take the hit in McCain having a hissy fit over it.
    obama would be foolish to fore go the money.
    • ^
    • v
    Song by Three Dog Night - Don't Make Promises
    http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/36648.html

    Don't make promises you can't keep.
    Don't make promises you can't keep.
    Don't make promises you can't keep.
    Tired of hearing 'em.
    Tired of hearing 'em.
    • ^
    • v
    Obama didn't promise he would take public money. His previous wording on the matter was very careful.
    • ^
    • v
    Coming from Red State this is hilarious!

    Does Barack think we are stupid, or are we just stupid?
    • ^
    • v
    Why is this NOT a good deal for Barack Obama and us Tax payers that he doesn't want to use Tax payers money to run for office?

    If Obama declines to feed at the public trough for his campaign, why is that NOT a good thing, as long as special interests are NOT funding his campaign?

    And has that NOT being the case, since a VAST majority of his campaign money comes from little folks donating a few dollars at a time on the internet?

    It sounds to me like John McCain, and others who are taking Obama to task for refusing to limit himself to public money are DEATHLY AFRAID of what his fundraising PROWESS will do to them in the campaign money chase.

    Give me a break, already!
    • ^
    • v
    You can look at the records, which have to be filed with the FEC every month for every campaign. http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00431445
    • ^
    • v
    A campaign financed by the American people who support him voluntarily - how friggen whack izzat?
    • ^
    • v
    Sen Obama said that he would bring change, and he has, everything he has said he has changed. He has to , to bring the change that is necessary to bring the us into our rightful place in the Global Alliance certain things will have to be accepted. All of you capitalist pigs had better be ready for A BIG CHANGE!
    • ^
    • v
    Obama never promised to do this.

    What Obama promised to do was sit down and try to negotiate an agreement with McCain on public financing.

    He was especially concerned about organizations like the Swift-Boaters.

    It doesn't surprise me that the Obama haters are willing to jump on this and twist it to serve their own ends.
    • ^
    • v
    I see Sillo is still flogging the tired story of Obama challenging illegal signatures on opponents' petitions. Amazing. Does (s)he condone electoral fraud? Does Hillary? Hmmm.

    Concerning the candidates Obama knocked out of the race against him: Why assume the other candidates were legitimate candidates for that office? Maybe those candidates deliberately padded their petitions with fake voters. Maybe not. It doesn't matter. The law says the signatures have to be legitimate and signed by real, living voters in the district, state, county or city for which they are petitioning to be on the ballot. You marginalize the law and rationalize cheating when you characterize abiding with election law as "crossing Ts and dotting Is." And when you call being a stickler for following the rules as "nefarious, underhanded, slimey (sic) old-school tactics", you attempt make the law breakers the heroes.

    Election officials are charged with scrutinizing these petitions and making sure the signatures are legitimate. This is NOT trivial. It's based on laws passed by Congress, signed by the president and upheld by the courts. It protects our democratic process. You are justifying cheating, especially by "progressive minority candidates." It is NOT OK to cheat in the electoral process. It is NOT fascism to insist that the process be legitimate. I don't see how you can rationalize gaming the system while criticizing Obama for using the system legitimately.
    • ^
    • v
    BTW, I'm also a small donor to Obama, and will continue to feed his campaign because I think he will work for the people, not the interests of big oil, big pharma, big defense, big insurance and the other special interests that fill the McSame coffers and expect plenty in return.
    • ^
    • v
    I remember distinctly Obama saying that he would negotiatie with McCain regarding public financing. i even remember reading a blog post about it (at TMV?)

    If there is evidence to the contrary, those making the claim that he has fliip-flopped had better produce it. I'm willing to be educated but not fooled.
    • ^
    • v
    In honor of Silhouette I just made another $20.08 donation to Obama.

    Yeah, its that easy.
    • ^
    • v
    He would be foolish not to take this position. Winning elections, right or wrong, hinge on having the most funds to spend. It is not the ONLY factor, but it is the biggest one.

    And, can anyone say with a straight face that the campaign finance laws do what they are 'supposed' to do - level the playing field (why? who says life or politics is fair?), and reduce corruption and influence peddling (excuse me while I snort my drink out my nose).
    • ^
    • v
    Runasim said: "If there is evidence to the contrary, those making the claim that he has fliip-flopped had better produce it."

    Here you go, Runasim.

    Here is Obama's clearest statement on this issue. His wording is careful, as ChrisWWW says. George Sorwell, in Obama's response there is nothing about sitting down and negotiating and we will see what happens...whatever...loosey-goosey. Obama replied: Yes.

    He says "Yes" in response to the question that "if" his opponents forego private funding will Obama. As McCain as indicated he will, Obama is clearly going back on his word.

    I know Obama supporters here are deperately parsing and clinging at straws...doubtless channeling the spirit of Bill Clinton (but that all depend on what the meaning of "if"is), but seriously.

    Of course, Obama would have been stupid not to take advantage of his increased fundraising. But be honest. . . he is going back on his word.

    "In Response To A 2007 Questionnaire, Obama Said He Would Accept Public Funding In General Election. Question: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" Obama: "Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Presidential Candidate Questionnaire," Midwest Democracy Network, www.commoncause.org, 11/27/07) "
    • ^
    • v
    How can it be any clearly, guys? Come on.

    Obama said:

    "Yes." Yes, full stop. Yes, he will. Yes.

    (Apologies to James Joyce re: the recent celebration of Bloomsday :)
    • ^
    • v
    And, can anyone say with a straight face that the campaign finance laws do what they are 'supposed' to do - level the playing field (why? who says life or politics is fair?), and reduce corruption and influence peddling (excuse me while I snort my drink out my nose).

    Campaign finance laws were never designed to "level the playing field." If a candidate is more popular than another, he or she logically would and should have more resources availabe for campaigning. That's democracy.
    • ^
    • v
    Didn't McCain already loose the high-ground here when he flip-flopped on public financing several months ago?

    Edit: A TMV article about McCain's change-of-heart on public financing during the Primary season. What's to make us think that McCain would stick to his word this time? That is assuming he even agreed public financing for the general election in the first place. Did he?

    http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blo...
    • ^
    • v
    I find myself conflicted. On the one hand, thanks, marlowecan, for digging that up. Obama at one point seems to have advocated a certain position and is giving that position up to retain an advantage. As Austin and others have stated, we all understand why, as moving to public financing is giving away one of Obama's distinct advantages since McCain's network of direct small contributors is nothing like Obama's. Still, it's a reverse and therefore not good.

    At the same time, I find myself thinking, "well, he should follow through on the promise of public financing, and then maybe there is someway to channel money to the DNC and other groups where the Republicans have a financial advantage, and then...." But then I stop and think, "isn't this making his financing and campaign less transparent?" It' moving money around to technically keep the promise, but not really since all the money will just flow to less transparent groups. From that perspective, it's ultimately better to have the majority of money going from supporters directly to a campaign in a documented, clear way. No sidetracking it.

    So I don't know. In the end, public fincancing only seems valid if it's the primary source of campaign funding, which in the current system, it's not.
    • ^
    • v