Experts Mixed On Obama's Public Financing Decision
The statements are starting to trickle in from good-government types in reaction to Obama's big decision today to opt out of the public financing system, with one expert viewing the move as one of necessity and another seeing it as a betrayal of a major achievement in campaign-finance reform.
Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer pronounced himself "disappointed," saying in a statement that Obama's small-donor revolution doesn't justify the move because the inequities in the system remain.
"The Obama Internet fundraising success," Wertheimer said, "was the exception, not the rule, in the 2008 presidential primaries. Larger contributions of $1,000 or more provided the major source of funding for most of the other major presidential primary candidates."
But David Donnelly of Campaign Money Watch told the Huffington Post that Obama's decision, while "regrettable," is defensible if it enables his victory and subsequent efforts at further reform.
"We find Sen. Obama's decision to forgo public financing for the general election regrettable but understandable in light of the tens of millions of dollars that will be raised and spent outside the system attacking him," Donnelly said. "The real test is whether a candidate has pledged to make passage of public financing a priority if elected, and we intend to hold Sen. Obama accountable to his pledge to do so."
One note about the spin war that's erupted over this: The case being made by the McCain campaign, which blasted Obama's decision, is considerably weakened by the fact that McCain said in an interview that there was little he could do to control outside groups that might swift boat Obama.
The Illinois Senator, by contrast, has instructed his donors not to give to such groups. Now he can argue that his decision to opt out was in response to McCain's weak-willed approach to abuses of the system on his side.
"The real test is whether a candidate has pledged to make passage of public financing a priority if elected, and we intend to hold Sen. Obama accountable to his pledge to do so."
This is the test. Obama has been misleading about taking lobbyist money, but he has also intiated reform, so it's difficult to tell how progressive he is or will be.
June 19, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has not been misleading about lobbyist money, it is just that the press(and others) are not overly well informed. Obama's so-called 'oil-company' money was somewhere around $200k(don't have the exact $ handy). This is out of the more than $200 million that he raised - .1% (not 1%, .1%).
Additionally, anyone who gives more than $200 is listed and you need to disclose the company that you work for. My donations are personal and have nothing whatsoever to do with my employer - but I still needed to list who I work for. With 1.7 million donors, odds are that a portion of them work for the oil industry and none of them get any more 'say' than the other 1,699,000 donors.
Anyone who was a federal lobbyist had to give up their job before signing onto his campaign -- 2 years ago and none of his top advisors are lobbyists.
Anyone donating to the campaign needs to attest the following (among other things):
"This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent."
He did take lobbyist $ in the state senate and in his senate campaign but he has drawn a hard line on his pres campaign. He has never said otherwise.
June 19, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you're saying, and I'm not unsympathetic to it. The campiagn itself has touted not taking money from "Washington" lobbyists, which exploits a semantic distinction more than anything else. On the other hand, he has been raising money from individual donations, which is what campaign finance reform aims for.
Published on Sunday, April 22, 2007 by Los Angeles Times
Obama’s Refusal of Lobbyists’ Money Has its Limits
by Dan Morain
But the Illinois Democrat’s policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.
Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.
“Clearly, the distinction is not that significant,” said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.
“He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different,” Weissman said. “But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.”
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/
June 19, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The operative phrase in that last sentence is "funding his campaign".
Sure they are providing some funds, but it is a small fraction and not a decisive share. Nor is there any practical way to blacklist people based on the name of the employer unless you are willing to through the janitor out with the CEO. (Professional lobbyists are actually required to put themselves on a register which is publicly available).
There is a considerable difference between the gas industry raising $1million for a campaign that only raises $5 million and a campaign that raises $500 million.
June 19, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article isn't suggesting that this money is slipping through beyond the campaign's control; it reports how the campaign was actively raising money through lobbyist networks (The Boston Globe also ran a story on this).
But I would agree with your overall point, that in raising so much money from indiviudal donors, the impact of the other money (and hopefully its influence)is greatly diminished.
June 19, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, even my $25 contributions require the exact same disclosure. I guess once I give eight of them I'll be on some list just like Steve Jobs or whoever. Not sure whether my contributor form is aggregated into the published demographic stats or not...
June 19, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have clairfied - the campaigns don't have to list your donation individually to the FEC unless you donate more than $200 in a calendar year. The smaller donations get lumped into one catch-all donor category so the individual info is collected but not reported.
To your point, they collect the info on smaller donors so that if you do end up giving over $200 then they have the info to report. That is how I donated too. I gave more than $200 but over the course of 6 months.
June 19, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is absurd. The fundamental purpose of campaign finance reform is to limit the influence of large donors, but its effectiveness has been limited by a number of tricks used to game the system. Financing a campaign by millions of small donors accomplishes the true intent of reform in ways legislation cannot hope to do.
June 19, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. This is the same argument Dean had for opting out in 2003.
June 19, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
and meanwhile, 527 group swith unlimited fundraising capability will attack, as they did, and clearly be an influence of a small number of well heeled people. The exact opposite of the intent of campaign finance reform, but John McCain can't do anything about that. Mind you, Obama has specifically asked his network NOT to donate to 527s.
June 19, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an opponent of Public Financing for the sole reason that I don't want my tax dollars to be financing the candidate I oppose.
I prefer more sensible Finance Reform and not taking money from PACs and Federal registered lobbyists.
June 19, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should look at the results in states that use public financing in state races. I think you would be impressed. It makes the system much more democratic.
June 19, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was the right move, the only logical move, and everyone knows it. Beyond that, everyone knows that McCain has been making a mockery of campaign finance laws this entire campaign, and they know he is talking out his ass when he attacks Obama over his decision. We also know that Obama's campaign internalizes the principles of campaign finance reform, even though he is opting out of the traditional, and broken, system. It is still the first truly publicly funded presidential campaign, and no amount of spin is going to change that.
McCain is just desperate, and will attack anything he can because he knows he is screwed.
June 19, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Per Daily Kos:
Of course, Republicans will whine that Obama "broke his promise". They've got no other choice. McCain is getting crushed financially, and has little of the popular support that Obama enjoys. The GOP's best hope for financial parity was to cajole and embarrass Obama into opting into a system -- an act that would've been political malpractice for the Obama campaign. When you have millions of people eager to participate in the process, you don't muzzle them, especially not to make John McCain feel better. And as a result, Obama will be able to run a true 50-state campaign, engaging people in every corner of our country.
Of course, let's not forget that McCain opted in to the public finance system in the primary, then backed out after using his opt-in to secure a loan and get on the ballot in several states -- breaking not just his promise, but the law as well. Of course, hypocrisy never stopped Republicans, and this issue won't be any different. But let's not pretend that hypocrisy isn't there.
There's one other delicious irony at work -- don't you find it funny that McCain, the Republican, is embracing government funding for the election while Obama, the Democrat, would rather be self-reliant?
June 19, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP is acting surprised that Obama won't cut off a hand before the prize fight. He's not taking the funding because he's going to raise boatloads more by himself.
GOP: your candidate is a loser who instills no enthusiasm. Don't think we're going to shoot ourselves in the foot to help you out.
June 19, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the right move for Obama, "expert" reaction be damned. If he were to lay down his sword of fundrasing and willingly put on the yolk of public financing like a jockey putting on sandbags to handicap him back to his opponent's level, he would appear weak and foolish. It would be the election version of unilateral disarmament. He needs to appear strong and savvy, not weak and foolish, and this choice does that for him. What is more, he can justify his actions due to McCain's refusal to try to control right wing 527 groups. Good call Obama.
June 19, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll have my campaign financing sunny side up, thank you.
June 20, 2008 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, very very ironic. In some ways Obama is more Republican than the Republicans - in a good way. It is also ironic that McCain sponsored the finance reform bill and he is the one who is doing all kinds of things to work around it. It is only a good idea unless it applies to him.
While I don't disagree with this decision (it shows Obama is smart and practical) I certainly don't think there is any high ideology involved. He did it because he can and would have been stupid to do anything else. Why would anyone in their right mind give up that kind of advantage?
June 19, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Yes, very very ironic. In some ways Obama is more Republican than the Republicans" no, he just realized he could get morew money by not accepting public funding, nothing to do with principle. BTW McCain is a Republican, not a conservative. Conservatives fought McCain Feingold till the end.
June 19, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, McCain has consistently rated as a conservative Republican. He's no maverick.
June 19, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why do so many conservatives hate him?
June 19, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what you get when you're a conservative who regularly pretends to be Maverick. On one hand, you're able to fool and win the support of those who like a maverick. On the other hand, conservatives don't even know that you're a conservative.
June 19, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's always been to hard to tell how much of a maverick McCain really is, especially before the war when lots of Dems and Indys liked him. He had the right rhetoric (bipartisanship, Washington is broken, etc.) and his opposition to Bush's tax, torture, etc. didn't help him with conservatives. That said, look at him courting the conservatives now--evangelicals, for example.
June 19, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has to court us now...he needs our votes. Just like Obama's hangin' with the BlueDogs...he needs their constituents. Remember there was serious talk just 4 years ago about him leaving the party and running with Kerry. I don't know how he got the nomination...I'm a Romney guy myself and think he's our only hope right now.
June 19, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your on the wrong site to get that answered.
June 19, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What side is that?
June 19, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's rated a conservative by leftwing sites, check some of the conservative rating sites and Lieberman beats him.
June 19, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur! McCain, the Republican, is embracing government funding ONLY because he knows he'll not be able to compete with Obama's fundraising prowess, so it makes sense to tell the opponent "let's break a leg each before the fight" when you know you already have a broken leg.
On the other hand, Obama is one Democrat, Republicans are never going to be able to mess with. Think he's naive? Think again!
June 19, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"David Donnelly of Campaign Finance Watch told the Huffington Post that Obama's decision, while "regrettable," is defensible if it enables his victory and subsequent efforts at further reform."
...so you don't mind him going "outside" the system as long as when he gets elected he passes laws that make it impossible for others to go outside the system...? What?!?
June 19, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
...Or they can create an Internet based financing system that blows the shitty public one away?
June 19, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The case being made by the McCain campaign, which blasted Obama's decision, is considerably weakened by the fact that McCain said in an interview that there was little he could do to control outside groups that might swift boat Obama.
The Illinois Senator, by contrast, has instructed his donors not to give to such groups. Now he can argue that his decision to opt out was in response to McCain's weak-willed approach to abuses of the system on his side."
Game, set and match. Now if Obama can openly campaign against warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity, I'll be back to enthusiastically supporting him again.
June 19, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and this little goodie should be part of any talking points from the Obama campaign, whenever the issue of public financing is brought up.
And, McCain's flip-flop on public financing during the primary should also be brought up.
June 19, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an absolute no brainer. Only an idiot would compromise the greatest Internt-based small donor organization to adopt public finanicing in shambles.
June 19, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a damned if does except public financing, damned if doesn't kind of thing. Obama's decision is disappointing, if understandable.
The problem lies, not so much with Obama, who has refused lobbyist money and is running a grass roots based campaign but with those politicians, especially Republicans, who will be more than happy to circumvent public financing, with less laudable motives.
June 19, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, from the "big surprises" file, Fred Wertheimer disapproves. This is the same guy who took a non-commital, wishy-washy approach to John McCain's pledge of public money to guarantee a loan to his campaign. I think we can pretty safely disregard anything Fred 21 has to say.
June 19, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I think that if Obama didn't have to contend with the 527s (and if the 527s didn't have the reputation they do garnered from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sham), it would be hard to make a case for Obama opting out of public financing. But, the 527s do exist - both Obama and McCain will have to deal with them.
And while I see your point about going outside the system, I think the goal would be to reach the point so that it's not necessary to go outside the system.
June 19, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was intended as a reply to Sargeant Wallace up there.
June 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me re-frame this.
The only way to be consistent with his entire campaign is to refuse public funding.
The overarching theme of Obama entire campaign to is give the people a voice in their government again. Not simply by running on a popular platform, but by jolting people out of their passive stupor and giving them a real and important way to get involved in their own future.
One extremely important way for people to involved is to give of their own money, and to give money in a way that they feel that their collective voice outweighs those of the traditionally rich and powerful. Suddenly giving your own $50 bucks transforms into trying to convince your neighbors and family and friends that together they can make a difference. (the same can be said for contributing time and effort and ingenuity, but I would argue they have a less immediate impact on one;s own personal sense of ownership).
Public financing encourages passivity. No individual has a particular stake, no individual has to even think about making a sacrifice or at least a trade-off. No one has to try to convince their fellow citizens of the importance of collective action.
Public financing encourages you to sit back and enjoy the show. The Obama campaign is all about exactly the opposite.
June 19, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
the obama descision was a good one because by time november comes we are still going to be in war, have a horrible economy no one is going to care about the stupid public financing thing.
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/dwc-checklist-4-change-part-1/
June 19, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uncle O -- ya gotta love him!
Is there anything he won't sell out on?
Trust me on this one -- before his re-election run in 2012, Obama will be seeing the same whitening doctor Michael Jackson sees!
(But hopefully not the same nose-surgeon.)
June 19, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just love your avatar UltraMan, powered by the sun!
June 19, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink