Obama Risks `Pristine' Image in Question of Public Financing

Barack Obama has decided to forgo public fundraising, and in doing so, has broken an earlier campaign pledge to wage a campaign funded by public donations.

June 13 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama learned the pitfalls of claiming the moral high ground this week when a top adviser resigned under pressure. His next challenge is whether to forfeit a huge financial edge over Republican John McCain or renege on a promise to accept public-funding limits.

Obama pledged in March 2007 to pursue an agreement with the Republicans to participate in the public-financing system, which is designed to limit the influence of big money. That was before he began shattering private-fundraising records.

Strategists from both parties say the presumptive Democratic nominee would have an advantage of more than $100 million in the general election if he declines public money and its spending restrictions. The question is how much criticism he'd take for becoming the first presidential candidate to opt out of the system, which dates back to the Watergate era.

www.bloomberg.com...

Obama says that he will be forgoing more than $80 million by this decision, but before you begin praising his decision to take this "financial risk", it would be wise to realize that this opens the door for him to raise more than $300 million in private financing.

Another broken campaign promise, made because of political expediency. Call it what you want, it just illustrates politics as usual in 2008.

reply to post by jsobecky


Maybe i need you to spell it out for me...
If i catch the drift of what you're saying, you are asserting that Obama said he wont use privatized money (IE: From big oil companies, etc, to avoid the political fiasco of big corporations buying legislation with campaign funding)

Instead, he'd stick with public donations

i fail to see how he's going against his promise of public donations...
( i have not had my rebull today....seriously...my brain is going on 1/4 steam)

The Republican party has shown over the past decade or so that they're willing to spend any amount of money necessary to win an election. I think Obama would be foolish to underestimate the Republican machine and start off the general election campaign with an attitude that he'll be able to coast into the white house.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


It's the other way around. He is going to fund his campaign with private donations as opposed to the way he had been doing it, ie, public donations. Public money has donation limits and restrictions. That makes it better and more moral, supposedly.

i understand now

"We've made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election," Obama says in the video, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying "we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations."

Source


I hope Obama handles this carefully. There's a reason corporations contribute to campaigns, they expect something in return.

I wonder what happens if they don't get what they expected?

[edit on 19-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

 

It's the other way around. He is going to fund his campaign with private donations as opposed to the way he had been doing it, ie, public donations. Public money has donation limits and restrictions. That makes it better and more moral, supposedly.

I think you're a little confused here...

Public financing money comes from our taxes when we check that donate 3 dollars box on our returns.

Private donations come either from individuals or 'special interest groups.'

What's been different about Obama's private contributions is that a large chunk of it has come from individuals donating a few bucks at a time.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by milesp]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin



I honestly don't know of any candidate or elected official who is not beholden to big business to some degree. But since money talks so loudly in this world, I'd hate to be the one who double-crossed big business or reneged on a promise. Minimally, they'd expose a lot of dirt on you, at worst, well, JFK and RFK may be examples.

reply to post by milesp

Originally posted by milesp
I think you're a little confused here...

Public financing money comes from our taxes when we check that donate 3 dollars box on our returns.

Private donations come either from individuals or 'special interest groups.'

What's been different about Obama's private contributions is that a large chunk of it has come from individuals donating a few bucks at a time.

Well, you may very well be right when you say I'm a bit confused. Campaign financing is not one of my strengths. Esp. when you start talking about "soft money", McCain-Feingold, etc.

But if *I'm* confused, I'd wager that a whole bunch of other voters are, too, so it's a good thing we can discuss these issues here in the open.

oh, let's see... Obama decided against the limited monies doled out by the Treasury for a publically (meaning Taxpayer) funded campaign...

-->>soon after his Chantilly, VA. Bilderburger Meeting

Given that this campaign is bound to get ugly, and with various other groups that will be working against Obama, this is no surprise, and frankly doesn't bother me. He has said that he nor the Democratic Party will no longer be accepting money from lobbyists, so he is still holding up that part of the promise.

Obama's In Control: No More Lobbyist Contributions To Democratic Party

You know that anyone in the same position would do the same thing.

Originally posted by Hal9000
Given that this campaign is bound to get ugly, and with various other groups that will be working against Obama, this is no surprise, and frankly doesn't bother me. He has said that he nor the Democratic Party will no longer be accepting money from lobbyists, so he is still holding up that part of the promise.

Obama's In Control: No More Lobbyist Contributions To Democratic Party

You know that anyone in the same position would do the same thing.

Except that it IS another example of Obama forcing us to decide which of his statements to believe. Flip-flopping is simply another form of pandering, which is yet another form of lying.

But it's OK with you as long as it's your guy doing it?

Based on incidents like this, the simple truth is that you have no clue what Obama would do, or what his policies would be if he were to be elected.

Given that, your reasons for still supporting Obama would be ...?

[edit on 6/19/2008 by centurion1211]

Here's a video where Obama explains his decision to his supporters:

donate.barackobama.com...

Notice how he refers to it as a "broken system" frequently.

My question is, when did it become "broken"? When it ceased to work to his advantage?

Originally posted by centurion1211
Based on incidents like this, the simple truth is that you have no clue what Obama would do, or what his policies would be if he were to be elected.

Isn't that true for any other person who gets elected to any office? Why is Obama different? Even though you won't like if I use Bush as an example, we can find many things he said he would do or not do, and the opposite turned out to be the result.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

 

It's the other way around. He is going to fund his campaign with private donations as opposed to the way he had been doing it, ie, public donations. Public money has donation limits and restrictions. That makes it better and more moral, supposedly.

this hasn't happened since Nixon I hear.

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by centurion1211
Based on incidents like this, the simple truth is that you have no clue what Obama would do, or what his policies would be if he were to be elected.

Isn't that true for any other person who gets elected to any office? Why is Obama different? Even though you won't like if I use Bush as an example, we can find many things he said he would do or not do, and the opposite turned out to be the result.

Is your response really that, well, Obama is no worse than Bush - a president criticized like no other in history? You admit they're in the same league as far as being truthful goes?

If so, then how do you really feel about your support for Obama?

Republican National Committee: Obama's Hypocrisy - Why Has Obama Continued to Accept Money From Rezko's Fundraising Network?
news.yahoo.com... fundraising_network

Originally posted by centurion1211
Is your response really that, well, Obama is no worse than Bush - a president criticized like no other in history? You admit they're in the same league as far as being truthful goes?

Thanks for putting all those words in my mouth, but my answer is we won't know until after he is elected.

If so, then how do you really feel about your support for Obama?

I feel just fine. How are you?

It should also be noted that McCain's finances were getting quite low when Hillary was still in the race. McCain also dropped public funding and is going to be funded privately - his wife has a ton of big bucks. Now he'll have lots of money for his campaign. In light of this new information,
I would imagine that Obama has decided that he needs to have enough money to win, especially since McCain would have so much. I don't think it's flip-flopping, it's common sense.
He has never accepted lobbyist money.

I wouldn't call it flip-flopping either. When Obama first talked about this, in Februrary of 2007, he probably had no clue what he would be up against. Although he should have, in my opinion. He saw John Kerry get "swiftboated". He should have known the Republican Machine wouldn't give him a free ride. He should have known the 527s would throw everything at him.

Anyway, does anyone know of John McCain ever pledged to stick with public funding? Was there ever an official agreement? Because it seems like several times, he has threatened or tried to withdraw from the public funds.

And on February 12 of this year, McCain Rejects Public Funding

Published by Communications on February 12, 2008 5:27 PM | Permalink
Republican John McCain has announced that he won't be accepting public financing for his campaign. "The decision will allow McCain to ignore the $54 million spending limit he would have had to observe had he taken public funds, allowing him to train his sights on his eventual Democratic opponent," according to Reuters.

It doesn't sound like they had a deal at all, to me. Am I missing something, jso?

Freedom's Watch

More on Freedom's Watch

Freedom's Watch, with its close White House connections and network of Bob Perrys, is a whole new breed.

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. (The group intends to "broaden its base" as time goes on, Fleischer says.) The group got off the ground with a $15 million effort to support the president's surge strategy in August, but it's sticking around for the long haul.

Oh, puke!

Gotta go. I'm off to donate to Obama's campaign.