Obama won’t accept public financing

[cal04]

Source: The Hill

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) announced Thursday morning that he will not accept public financing for the general election, calling the system broken.

Obama, who has shattered every fundraising record during the primary, said because Republicans accept money from lobbyists, and given the influence of outside 527 groups, he has decided not to accept the more than $84 million he would receive from public financing.

Obama made the announcement via web video that was sent out to his supporters and the media.

Republicans have foreshadowed their attacks on Obama’s decision, and they will likely seize on that decision to call the Illinois senator a hypocrite.


Read more: http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-wont-accept-public-financing-2008-06-19.html

[Skinner]

1. Get to work, people!

The DU/Obama fundraising page: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/du

[katerinasmommy]

3. They will blast him for it

But what else was he going to do when John McCain says he "can't" control the 527s?

[eleny]

2. Sure, they'll call him "a hypocrite" and then they''ll be calling him "Mr. President"

:D

[knixphan]

48. true dat!

[tblue37]

4. Good for him. They just wanted him to bring a knife to a gunfight. n/t

[agentS]

5. Big loss for Obama

He should've stuck to his guns on this one. Problem is that even sticking to the guns on this case is just as bad.

The FEC is without leadership. They don't have anyone running the FEC board or whatever its called.
It's like playing a league game without refs. Though, in the NBA's case, the refs are fixing the games, but still.
McCain's not even following the fricken rules and he's getting away with it because there's no ref saying "you broke your own rules".

So he's gonna take some hits from the righties on this. Fine, he says. This is a chess game, and you have to sacrifice pieces to win.

I always knew this election would become a 527 shooting war. Obama wants to make sure his side has the most ammo. Welcome to politics in 2008...

[endarkenment]

6. Thank you for your concern.

Obama said he would discuss this with the rethuglican nominee, he made no firm commitment. The rethuglican nominee has already amply demonstrated that he will violate the spirit and the letter of the campaign financing laws and use the fact that the FEC is paralyzed to avoid any repercussions. Thanks again for propagating the rightwing talking point that Obama made a commitment to use the borked public system.

[agentS]

9. Now wait a minute

I never said that he firmly committed to taking public money. I merely said that he should've stuck to his guns on the issue.
He should've pushed harder to "fix" the system or negotiated with McCain to make some ground rules.

Maybe he tried both tactics and it wasn't reported. Wouldn't surprise me at all if that were the case.

[brooklynite]

12. They - can't - negotiate...

Either they accept Campaign Financing as the law stipulates, (i.e. with all its restrictions) or they don't. There's no way either can change the law, or make a binding agreement on outside expenditures.

[snappyturtle]

39. As I recall Sen. Obama didn't back himself into a corner committing

to public financing, only that he would consider at the time when the repuke candidate did. I think we should all remember that at the time of that statement the massive amounts of money he has collected since was not a sure thing. I agree with you about the propagating of the right wing talking points! Geez.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[niceypoo]

10. I am all for public financing, but I have to disagree with you on this one...

Until http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo">Buckley v Valeo, which says money is free speech, is overturned, we will have corporate elections. In this climate, public financing would be suicide.

Once this law is overturned, we can have purely publicly financed elections which would end the corporate bribery system we have now.

[agentS]

104. Obama's "Loss" is not in money

The Rethugs, as everybody has said, are using this to bash the guy as "going against his word", even though he never said that he would unilaterally accept public money.

Just like you guys here have said; it's not a big deal since he never agreed to public money. However this will confuse low-info voters who get their viewpoints from FAUX News and ABC, which are already in the bag for McCain.

McCain today has accepted the money; because he can't get enough limbaughs to see him speak and write checks.

[brooklynite]

7. Full Statement from the Obama Campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snsnqbq_OCo&eurl=http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gG5SPm

Hi, this is Barack Obama.

I have an important announcement and I wanted all of you – the people who built this movement from the bottom-up – to hear it first. We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election. This means we’ll be forgoing more than $80 million in public funds during the final months of this election.

It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and 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.

From the very beginning of this campaign, I have asked my supporters to avoid that kind of unregulated activity and join us in building a new kind of politics – and you have. Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. We’ve won the Democratic nomination by relying on ordinary people coming together to achieve extraordinary things.

You’ve already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that’s the only way we can truly change how Washington works. And that’s the path we will continue in this general election. I’m asking you to try to do something that’s never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far.

If we don’t stand together, the broken system we have now, a system where special interests drown out the voices of the American people will continue to erode our politics and prevent the possibility of real change. That’s why we must act. The stakes are higher than ever, and people are counting on us.

Every American who is desperate for a fair economy and affordable healthcare, who wants to bring our troops back from Iraq. Who hopes for a better education and future for his or her child, these people are relying on us. You and me. This is our moment and our country is depending on us. So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system and let’s build the first general election campaign that’s truly funded by the American people. With this decision this campaign is in your hands in a way that no campaign has ever been before. Now is the time to act. Thank you so much.

[Sherman A1]

8. Well,

if he is as he has said, soliciting numerous smaller donations through the web and such... is it not the public who is financing his campaign? Just because the funds do not draw from the Federal Treasury, does not necessarily mean it is not financed by the public.

[brooklynite]

11. The McCain campaign shoots back...

"Today, Barack Obama has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama."

"The true test of a candidate for President is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people. Barack Obama has failed that test today, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics."

"Barack Obama is now the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign entirely on private funds. This decision will have far-reaching and extraordinary consequences that will weaken and undermine the public financing system."

WHy do I have a feeling the average voter is going to see this as an "inside the beltway" issue of no relevance to their life?

[mopinko]

15. i think the man lies in his sleep.

everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. can a snore be a lie? if it can, his are.

first, obama never said he was taking public funding, and that it depended on what gramps was gonna do.
second, bush cheney opted out. both times, iirc.

[smoogatz]

20. The average voter's probably going to see it for what it is:

more pathetic whining from the McCain campaign. Obama fights back! He raises money! No fair!!!11!!

[closeupready]

13. I'm dumb, and I don't get teh controversy. Can someone post a cliffnotes

version of the significance of taking public financing, why the GOP is pissed off?

[smoogatz]

18. Sure.

If Obama had opted to accept public financing, he'd have been limited under the law to accepting and spending no more than $84 million in public funds for the remainder of the campaign—no private money allowed. $84 million may sound like a lot of money, but by the end of April Obama had already raised over $265 million in private money, most of it in small donations over the internet. He'd be a fool to accept public financing when he has a huge fundraising advantage over McCain, obviously. There's also the issue of McCain's attempts to game the public financing system: he's illegally taking public funds and raising private money, and the FEC is unable/unwilling to do anything about it.

[closeupready]

21. Ah. I see. Thanks for that!

:hi:

[Brotherjohn]

14. Please explain, help me catch up...

How is he a hypocrite if he's TURNING DOWN public financing when he had said he would accept it? It might be the case if he had said he would NOT accept it and then did.

He has already refused to accept Lobbysist $$$, right? Now he has refused to accept public financing. Turning down possible sources of $$ because grassroots gives him all he needs just makes him popular, and in no need of other sources. That isn't hypocritical.

Is the source of the "hypocrite" charge something like he had said he would accept ONLY public financing IF John McCain did same? Well, if McCain hasn't yet taken him up on that, Obama hasn't broken any pledge.

What am I not understanding here?

[smoogatz]

19. He never said he would accept it.

He said he might, if his Republican opponent did the same. Trouble is, McCain's been gaming the public financing system pretty much from the get-go, which is odd behavior for a guy who's tried to make campaign finance reform one of the touchstones of his career.

[redstorm20]

16. Excuses

It seems like a lot of excuses are being made because you A)Support Obama, and B)know that Obama holds the fundraising advantage.

My guess is that if McCain was raising a quarter of a billion dollars and Obama was lagging behind there would be considerable outcry

Public Financing is no different from Free Speech, you are either for it or against it... You cannot tailor your opinion based on circumstances that may or may not give you an advantage

Just because you like a candidate doesn't mean you should not hold them accountable- Having the fundraising advantage Obama had a clear chance to make deal with McCain for a publicly financed election and he chose not to.

[Celebration]

25. "make a deal with McCain"

McCain turned down a deal by saying he couldn't control 527s.

Obama would be stupid to limit his spending, and leave himself open to unlimited attacks by Rethug 527s.

We have had eight years of stupid.

Time for CHANGE!! (to REDSTORM20 )

[redstorm20]

27. Right, but

It is time for Change... the Sad thing is that you don't realize you are starting to sound like the people you are denouncing in that-

The Ends Justify the Means

[Celebration]

31. uh, no

The ENDS in this case is to stop corporate financing of campaigns. That was the entire purpose of the public finance laws. If you don't see that, then you are being disingenuous.

McCain was unable/unwilling to stop the corporate/large donor 527s financing of his campaign. So this is the same old same old.

And hey, guess what? Obama will be able to match this WHILE TAKING NO MONEY FROM LOBBYISTS.

So, in his case THE END is intact. The means are also intact.

The big change in his campaign is no lobbyist money.

So, I am sounding, actually, SANE. And you are sounding like, uh, I won't say it. But you aren't making sense, and I suspect you know it.

[redstorm20]

33. Is this stopping Corporate Financing?

Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $437,236
UBS AG $364,806
JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207
Citigroup Inc $358,054
National Amusements Inc $320,750
Lehman Brothers $318,647
Google Inc $309,514
Harvard University $309,025
Sidley Austin LLP $294,245
Skadden, Arps et al $270,013
Time Warner $262,677
Morgan Stanley $259,876
Jones Day $250,725
Exelon Corp $236,211
University of Chicago $218,857
Wilmerhale LLP $218,680
Latham & Watkins $218,615
Microsoft Corp $209,242
Stanford University $195,262


The Ends being the presidency, the Means being this as your donor list.

... And I will say for the last time on this posting- You are either for Public Financing or Against it.

[Celebration]

34. Absurd!!!!!

Donors do work for corporations. So a janitor at Stanford University gives to Obama and you call that corporate financing? LOL. This is too funny.

You are revealing FAR MORE ABOUT YOURSELF THAN ABOUT OBAMA!!

[redstorm20]

36. "Absurd"?

So you think the Janitors at Goldman Sach pooled together half a million for Obama?

Who is being absurd?

[Celebration]

38. It's employees

Whatever their title-- from Vice President to Secretary,

And all within the legal (SMALL) campaign contribution limit-- it is not corporate money, it is money from people who happen to have jobs.

Same as McSame, except apparently he doesn't inspire people to give to him.

I suppose you would want to limit campaign contributions to people who are unemployed?

[odelisk8]

40. um

that is PAC money...nearly, 6,000,000 so far...it's called "special interest money"...the "employees" of G Sachs have an interest in keeping their jobs...that means an interest in maintaining the status quo...the only change there will be is superficial...sure, the president will be articulate...but he will still be in the pockets of corporate interests...sorry to poopa your party...unless you LIKE that...which is your right...i'll just sit here, on the left...alone, as usual...

[Celebration]

41. sounds like

you want Obama to lose the election.

Don't take money from employed people.

Let lobbyist funded right wing 527s attack and have no money to respond.

Sounds like a recipe for losing the election to me! Again, stupid is the last eight years. Not now.

[odelisk8]

42. um

I want someone to win who will actually DO something about the hostile takeover of American elections by corporate interests...not on board with that? fine. but don't call that change.

[Celebration]

43. can't roll over and die

Get real. Your agenda would cause Obama to lose, and you know it. Every candidate has to work within the law. Plus, he is accepting no lobbyist money. But to stop taking money from employeed individuals would mean no campaign at all. Accepting the limits of public financing means not answering Rethug 527 attack ads. You know it. You are being disingenuous.

Apparently we need a constitutional amendment to stop the 527s. Work on that instead of picking on our Democratic nominee. All campaign finance reform measures mean nothing without stopping the 527s. That is your issue, not trying to ensure that McCain is elected.

[redstorm20]

45. "Picking on your nominee"?

do you not think you should hold public office holders accountable?- especially those that are "your nominee"?

[Celebration]

49. Nothing wrong with winning an election

Is there?

What exactly would you have Obama do with regard to campaign financing?

If it is to accept public financing, which would allow no money to respond to 527 attacks, you must want McCain to win.

[redstorm20]

52. So you are accepting.....

the truth in that the End Justifys the Means for you.

All you care about is winning the election and have no strong argument as to the financing of campaigns.

Oh well

[Celebration]

54. well let's get a little pragmatic here

Yes, I desperately want to win the election.

Given the state of our laws, I see absolutely nothing "wrong" that Obama is doing in order to win the election. He is using money donated to him, and none of it is lobbyist money. That is perfectly fine with me. I would be really upset if he had to let Republican attack ads go unanswered just because he didn't want to use campaign contributions from individuals who happen to be employed.

If you want broad based, effective campaign finance reform that includes 527 money, I suggest you work for that goal rather than advocating that Obama give up his advantage in getting a broad range of individuals to give small contributions.

[redstorm20]

65. Did you donate money to Obama?

Do you remember having to tell where you work?... I didn't

[joeglow3]

69. Of course you don't tell then where you work

This IS special interest money. However, I can honestly say, I don't know what I think. I want Obama to win more than anything, but I don't want to sink to their level to do it.

[Qutzupalotl]

70. Yes, employer name is gathered for FEC

To comply with Federal law, we must use best efforts to obtain, maintain, and submit the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 per calendar year.

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/independencefeature


Also see affirmation #6:
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.

[redstorm20]

71. Exceed $200 per calendar year....

Small donations you DO NOT HAVE TO.... how many blue collar working class Americans donate more than $200?

[Qutzupalotl]

73. $20 a month for 10 months

I'd say quite a few.

[redstorm20]

76. doubt it

far more donations at the federal limit then cases of someone sending $20 a month for 10 Months.... which by the way it would have to be 6 months at this point... so more a shade under $40 a month for 6 months.... people struggling financially don't give this much or that often

[redstorm20]

44. "Vice-Presidents"

There you go... these are exactly who I don't want putting money into campaigns... VP's, Executives, Directors, ANYONE with power within a corporate system.

There is a Quid Pro Quo to them giving money

This is why I what Public Financing..... In theory yes, people in the mailroom on up can be giving donations, but the bulk of the money is coming from the top.

[Celebration]

51. public financing

Does not WORK when 527s are allowed. And they are allowed. You need to concentrate your efforts there.

So Obama should turn down donations from Vice Presidents and accept donations from janitors? Yup, you *must* want him to lose the election.

[redstorm20]

67. You are only damning yourself.....

I want an election where the candidates receive the same about of money, don't have to whore themselves to CEO's, VP's, etc... and the ISSUES are what is front and center and the winner is not determined by money, but by IDEAS

when the next republican comes along that generates huge donations like George W. Bush you will not have a leg to stand on with your argument.

Enough with your sad Meme of me not wanting Obama to win- It is a sad retort.

[Celebration]

94. You are, like

Sooooo easy to see through.

What you supposedly want with this election is completely impossible due to the 527 money. To give an unfair advantage to McCain by allowing the 527 attacks to go unanswered is completely unacceptable.
And, you know that.

[BklnDem75]

91. More dishonesty...

The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.


Why not post the whole thing instead of the part that only supports your argument?

[redstorm20]

98. Posted the top of the donor list.

So you are stating the the money is coming from PAC's and not small donors and yet it is I that is who have been disingenuous?

[BklnDem75]

99. Your attempt...

was to make it seem as if the corporations were the donors. Why not post the text along with the list?

[smoogatz]

53. Cry me a fucking river.

In what moral universe, other than the dim little imaginations of whiny McCain-supporters, is ANY candidate morally obliged to go on the public financing tit if he/she feels it would not be to his/her advantage to do so? Do you think McCain would take public money (and be bound by mandated spending limits) if he could stay competitive without it? That would happen shortly after monkeys flew out of your ass, redstrom20.

[endarkenment]

55. McFelon has already demonstrated contempt for the public financing law

and is using the paralyzed FEC to avoid punishment. This OP is a freeper honeypot.

[smoogatz]

58. Yep.

Right on all counts.

I want one of those FSM thingies for my car, BTW.

[odelisk8]

75. in the moral universe

where one of the morals is keeping your word...

"If Senator Obama is the nominee, he will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said last March. Obama affirmed the position in a questionnaire last November. - CBS

So, who has the moral high ground now? This "you support McCain" nonsense is just a distraction...Obama said he would use public funds if his opponent did...I haven't heard McCain say he was opting out...Obama already has TONS more money than McCain...these are all red herrings you are throwing...I will never vote for McCain...but I will also never vote for someone who I feel would sell me down the river for the corporatocracy...

[Name removed]

79. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[disndat]

17. The Obama Revolution

has begun! Don't have to wait until January '09 and notice how other important establishment people, like Al Gore, are falling in line.

[odelisk8]

22. not to mention his other contributors...

Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $437,236
UBS AG $364,806
JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207
Citigroup Inc $358,054
National Amusements Inc $320,750
Lehman Brothers $318,647
Google Inc $309,514
Harvard University $309,025
Sidley Austin LLP $294,245
Skadden, Arps et al $270,013
Time Warner $262,677
Morgan Stanley $259,876
Jones Day $250,725
Exelon Corp $236,211
University of Chicago $218,857
Wilmerhale LLP $218,680
Latham & Watkins $218,615
Microsoft Corp $209,242
Stanford University $195,262

Total - 5,985,972

PAC-a-liscious!

THESE are his TOP donors...

[DCKit]

61. You forgot to add "employees" before the dollar signs in every row.

You are twisting facts to suit your premise that Obama is taking money from corporations and organizations and not the people who happen to work for those companies, universities and law firms.

Even when I gave online, I was asked the specific name of my employer. That is how these donations are reported, thus the headlines about HRC taking in millions from Rupert Murdoch when, in fact, it was his employees who donated to her campaign.

[odelisk8]

78. so

when the CEO of Goldman Sachs wants a chat with Obama...he/she will get the same treatment as the janitor...you are delusional...the real world, get with it...

and as far as freeper...i am beginning to understand its meaning...

freeper means anyone who does not engage in group think...anyone who is not an apparatchik...got it...

[DCKit]

101. Knowing the facts and defending them is group-think?

Oh, you guys and your catchy catch-phrases.

You had me this || close to thinking bad thoughts about Barack Obama. Series.

Drippy :sarcasm:

[nvme]

23. nice topic to out freepers

When Obama says he will sit down and discuss public financing with the republican nominee, that does not mean he will accept public financing. It means he will talk about it with mccain. since the 527's are looking to do nasty stuff soon, obama should utilize his tremendous fundraising ability and fight the 527's. Why should Obama limit his campaign? The FEC does not have a quorum election laws wont be enforced. McCain's already violated the law by taking a loan colateralized by his intent to file for public financing. So again in the spirit of fairness how is Obama to adress this?

[odelisk8]

24. and to out

head-in-the sand acolytes...what a great blog this would be if everyone just sat around blindly and obsequiously praising every little right turn the democratic nominee makes...NAFTA, anyone?

[redstorm20]

26. ?

Is this to be a reoccurring theme of an Obama presidency?- He says he is for something and then agrees to discuss the topic at hand, but it doesn't mean he will try to follow through.

Using your logic of the 527's, why couldn't Obama accept the public funding and have 527's to respond to any 527's spreading false information?.... This would at least get the ball rolling with candidates accepting public funding.

"Why should Obama limit his campaign?"- This goes exactly to what I posted earlier and the answer is obvious if you are truly for publicly financed elections

McCain did take out a loan collateralized by his intent to file for public financing, which violated the law (which he wrote) but how do you with a straight face say that Obama is in any sort of disadvantage ("spirit of Fairness") in regarding to fund raising?

.... And I voted for Obama in the Primary

[Celebration]

32. because

Using your logic of the 527's, why couldn't Obama accept the public funding and have 527's to respond to any 527's spreading false information?.... This would at least get the ball rolling with candidates accepting public funding.


Because 527s are generally funded by lobbyists and he doesn't want any organized campaigning by entities that take lobbyist money.

Repeat after me--"Obama does not take lobbyist money and he does not want lobbyist money intervening in his behalf in the campaign thru 527s, because Obama has a moral foundation."

[redstorm20]

35. Repeat after me....

527's DO NOT HAVE TO BE MONEY FROM LOBBYIST..... you can start a 527 and have donations from other Obama supports to run an ad negating a lie floating out into the media, etc..- Also Move.org is a 527, so if they make a commercial about McCain does this count as Obama taking Corporate Money

Your condescension is funny considering you end your post stating "Obama has a moral foundation" and one might ASSUME that prior to this election you were PROBABLY for public financing of elections, yet now are arguing aggressively against

Is this your "Moral Foundation"?

[Celebration]

37. what you suggest is against the law

Obama cannot answer 527 attacks using 527s of his own, because he is not legally able to control the 527 message.

Make no assumptions about me please. Public financing means nothing when 527 ads are allowed.

There are exceptions but most 527s are filled with lobbyist money. You picked one exception (surprise, surprise).

[redstorm20]

47. Your words

"McCain turned down a deal by saying he couldn't control 527s."

"Obama cannot answer 527 attacks using 527s of his own, because he is not legally able to control the 527 message."

Do you not see how you are talking out of both sides of your mouth?

"Do what you suggest is against the law"- Um, no.... what i said was that there could be 527's started by people such as yourself to promote ads negating any 527 Ad spreading lies... this is not against the law... i never said for obama to start the 527.... i give an example of this and your respond by saying "you picked one exception (surprise, surprise)"... well here are some more

Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund
Grassroots Democrats
New Democrat Network
Laborers Intl Union of North America
United Food and Commercial Workers

AND THERE ARE MORE

[Celebration]

50. follow the money

And you will find that there is far more money behind Republican 527s.........or DO YOU DENY THAT?

McCain may be correct that he cannot control 527s. So, no deal.

[smoogatz]

57. He can't legally control them, in fact.

It's a direct violation of campaign finance law for him to attempt to do so. That's what makes them such effective surrogates: they can make the most incredibly outlandish claims and launch incredibly vicious and entirely untrue attacks, and the candidates just throw up their hands and say "I condemn this sort of thing, but of course they're just exercising their first amendment right, blah blah blah." Where candidates can get into serious trouble is if there's evidence that they coordinated with 527s, but of course that's unlikely to emerge until well after the fact. What it comes down to is that the current law, by introducing the 527 wild-card, has pretty much negated the spirit of public campaign financing as originally conceived. In order to have a working pub-fi system, we'd have to amend the law and get rid of 527s.

[Celebration]

59. Agreed

There is no campaign finance reform when 527s are thrown in the mix.

But, would it require a constitutional amendment to try to control them?

To me, the 527 issue doesn't really sound like a free speech issue, but I guess it did to the courts. I would hate to have to use a constitutional amendment to limit free speech, just to address this issue. What a mess.

Anyone here in DU that wants Obama to roll over to the 527s by accepting limited public money has suspect motives.

[smoogatz]

60. Their motives are clear enough.

They want McCain to win, so they're going to pretend (for this news cycle, anyway) that public campaign finance is Teh Biggest Issue Evah and that it's just sad, SAD I tell you, that Obama's not living up to the high standards of political ineptitude Republicans are used to seeing in Democrats, or whatever. In short, screw them. Public financing is great in theory, but it ain't working in its current form and frankly there are for bigger fish to fry in this election.

[redstorm20]

64. Want McCain to Win?

I don't want McCain to win.... I already said I had voted for Obama in the Primary, the difference between me and apparently the two of you is that I hold my public officials accountable to what they profess... You unfortuately do not

"they're going to pretend (for this news cycle, anyway) that public campaign finance is Teh Biggest Issue Evah"

That is what the topic of the original post was, was it not?

You use a quote from Sinclair Lewis at the bottom of your posts, but completely miss the message.... He was telling readers to not simply listen to what a candidate SAYS they will do, but to FOLLOW THEIR ACTIONS.

I want Obama to win over McCain, but winning isn't good enough.... I want change, and I don't want to sacrifice CHANGE simply to WIN

[smoogatz]

68. LO motherfucking L.

"I want change, and I don't want to sacrifice CHANGE simply to WIN"

Good one.

[redstorm20]

74. I have little time for you.....

by your posts you come across extremely ignorant and are just part of a mob mentality simply caught up in winning

I will state again that it is sad that you all keep saying that I am a McCain supporter, when in fact it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Hold a politician accountable and your are labeled a heretic (I suppose in this case the Church of Obama?)

[smoogatz]

77. Okay, Einstein. I'll play.

Let's pretend you're not actually a freeptard (a stretch there, but what the hell) and take your idiocy at face value: how, pray tell, will Obama (or any other politician) have any effect whatsoever on the status quo if they roll over and play dead mid-election—which is what you're advocating—and LOSE? Enlighten us, please.

[redstorm20]

80. Easy

As I Stated earlier... If Obama and McCain accept public financing they have the same money- no advantage there.... If you are worried about 527 groups simply donate your money (and other Obama supporters should do the same) to a 527 group such as MoveOn.org (and many other left leaning 527's) to negate the trash that conservatives such as Ari Fleischer are throwing out there.

It isn't that hard and is far from idiocy.

That isn't "rolling over and playing dead"

[smoogatz]

82. LOL again.

Why should I settle for donating to moveon? Why should my free speech be limited? Why would you want to limit the participation of millions of potential donors? Unless you think it's a bad thing that Obama has a fundraising advantage, that is. Look, public financing is all about trying to limit corporate/lobbyist influence. Obama's already done that: he's not taking lobbyist money, and he's tapped into unprecedented support from "small dollar" contributors, diluting the effect and influence of "maxed out" contributions from wealthier donors. So yeah, trying to box him into pub-fi at this point would be idiotic AND pointless, unless you just want him to lose. In which case, screw you hard with a large square object, with knobs on it.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smoogatz]

89. Lordy. Now he's typing in all caps.

I think we know what that means.

[redstorm20]

92. I dont think you know....

it means pay attention and listen

[smoogatz]

93. Yep. That's what it means all right.

In freeperville.

[redstorm20]

81. Was this your stance in the primary?

Would you have stood for a Hillary supporter saying "how, pray tell, will Hillary (or any other politician) have any effect whatsoever on the status quo if they roll over and play dead mid-election—which is what you're advocating—and LOSE? Enlighten us, please."

Anything to Win?.... Throw Black inuendos out there, fair-game because it is an election and you can't lose?

[smoogatz]

83. How are "Black innuendos" analogous

to opting out of pub-fi? Pray, enlighten us again.

[redstorm20]

84. because you mentality seems to be "anything to win"

You keep responding with things like "Pray, enlighten us again" because you have nothing of value to say

[smoogatz]

85. Oh come on. You said it: how are "Black innuendoes"

(whatever they are) the same as opting out of pub-fi? If by "Black innuendoes" you mean "race-baiting," there's no reasonable basis for comparison. Race-baiting is despicable behavior unworthy of any Democrat. Obama's not doing anything less-than-ethical here: he's operating entirely within the law, and has in fact raised the ethical bar substantially by refusing to take donations from lobbyists, and instructing the DNC to do likewise. When will McCain follow suit, if he's so concerned about the integrity of the electoral system? Shortly after monkeys fly out of your ass, that's when.

[redstorm20]

86. McCain

I am not a McCain supporter... I don't give a shit what McCain does... I am an Obama supporter and I want him to stand by his word

The comparison is in the Mentality of the VOTER between pub-fi and "race-baiting".... All cards are off the table if it favors your candidate.... That is all I am getting from You and other like wise posters.... You previously LAUGHED at the idea of a politician sticking to his message/principles....

Is Obama better than McCain- OF COURSE

But at this point that isn't relevent FOR YOU because you will not hold him accountable if he doesn't adhere to the will of the left

Stopping Posting and let this info sink in

[smoogatz]

88. Obama never "gave his word" that he'd suck the pub-fi tit.

He said he'd think about it. He thought about it and said "no thanks." Look, if you think participation in the current cluster-fuck that is public campaign finance in this country is the be-all, end-all bedrock principle you're willing to win or lose the election on, fine—you're an idiot, but if that's what you actually believe, you're entitled to it. I happen to think there's more important stuff at stake here, and I'm not inclined to urge my candidate to give up his considerable fundraising advantage for no good reason. And your analogy still sucks: you presume to know the mind of "the voter?" Really? Would this even be an issue if McCain and his surrogates weren't falsely claiming that Obama had made a promise to participate in pub-fi? He didn't, so why would anyone who "wanted him to win" perpetuate that falsehood?

Okay, full circle. I'm done with you.

[redstorm20]

90. Again with the "Bedrock Principle".....

This is the topic of the post. Would you like to talk about another post? No one is going off of what McCain and his Surrogates say- OBAMA SAID he is for Public Financing of Elections. Perpetuating no falsehoods there, sorry.

[Robb]

95. redstorm20, your mom and I have dinner ready

Come upstairs and eat. You can play on the internets later. :hi:

[smoogatz]

97. LOL.

[smoogatz]

100. Tombstoned.

Nice work, mods.

[Bake]

28. The PUkes are just crying because nobody wants to contribute to Gramps

How does it feel, Pukes, to know that unlike every other campaign in recent history, you're NOT going to have the $$$$ advantage?

We've heard the Pukes screaming about free speech and Buckley v. Valeo for years now. The shoe's on the other foot now, and they don't like it. Screw 'em. This is hardball, and Obama would be a fool to give up his advantage.

Bake

[smoogatz]

30. Yep.

No fair!!!11! He's raising money!!11!!

[underpants]

46. No fair!! He is , like, favored by the fundraising market!!!

WE WANT EQUALITY!!!! (regardless off what George Will thinks)

[DCKit]

62. Perhaps the Supremes will rule that Obama has to share his war chest with McLame.

It would only be fair, right?

Not only do I consider Obama to be incredibly politically savvy, but he's surrounded himself with what seem to be equally savvy, highly intelligent and principled people. They've set standards for the campaign that are ONLY assailable via that old standby of Republic name calling. That's all they've got.

The Democratic campaigns of 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 may have been just as principled, but this bunch seems to have learned from the Republic dirty tricks played out in every election since 1968, and they're not falling for them. Republican strategists all over the country must be foaming at the mouth, tearing their hair out and running in circles. Hell, I'm gonna' start calling them the Rumpelstiltskin party.

The Obama campaign won't give them the opportunity they need develop a plausible campaign against him, so they're left acting like a bunch of seven year olds on the playground - along with identical arguments, juvenile taunts and temper tantrums. First grade teachers all over the country must be tuning out in droves. They get enough of that crap at work.

Keep it up Rumpelstiltskin. You've got a solid four months to completely alienate the 20% who still support you. We'll take 'em, for now, and in a few decades, when you've grown up, maybe a few will come back to an honorable and mature Republican party. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

[underpants]

63. excellent post

and as much as the MSM tries to facilitate the RNC would-be-bullies the more the masses will turn away from the message

Be careful what you ask for GOP this monster is your own creation.

[bluestateguy]

29. That's a relief

McCain has made it very clear that he has no plans to rein in the 527's that will be spewing on his behalf, and that are not bound by any spending limits at all. Obama needs to be able to defend himself.

Public financing would be fine with me if it weren't for the stupid spending caps.

[tidy_bowl]

56. Hmmmmmm.....

...you can't put forth the idea that yours is the 'NEW' politics while practicing the old politics. He should hold to his pledge to take public financing period or change his 'Change, we can believe in' slogan. It seems rather battered at the moment.

[Vinca]

66. Disagree. For starters, he never took a pledge, but said he would consider it.

Secondly, this shows what a good leader Obama will be. He realized what a money machine his web site is and made a decision. The funny part is, Obama is, essentially, getting "public" financing because his million plus small donors are footing the bill, not the taxpayers. In that sense it's the "very new" politics.

[Blaq Dem]

96. Maybe he 'changed' his mind about pub-fi.

[abelenkpe]

72. gee

forget the controversy. He's taking an awful risk in this economy pinning his hopes for financing on small donations from average folk when average folk are having a tougher and tougher time just making ends meet. Let's just donate what we can, while we still can because the economy is in a nose dive and we'll be lucky if the whole thing doesn't implode before November. I am so unconcerned with Obama being labeled a hypocrite, especially after the racist hate filled diatribe I received from my brother in Virginia last week. He thinks Obama is the antichrist and all kinds of other total bs. Some people just aren't worth the time worrying about, and the type that would get their pants bunched up over this have already decided to vote for McSame.

[some guy]

103. $84 million

taxpayer dollars that won't be going to corporate media owners.

I'll say :thumbsup:

:)

[Art_from_Ark]

105. But even more money

is going to flow in to corporate media owners from other sources

[some guy]

106. true.

There was discussion upthread about 527s. Maybe if money going through 527s to corporate media doesn't derail Obama, and he becomes the next President, 527s will have some of the luster knocked off them for future elections. I'd be happy if those who create and fund 527s decided it was a waste of time and money, and they were going to stop doing so.

The 527 discussion touched on Obama supporters being able to donate to MoveOn.org (as one example) to be able to help the Obama campaign, if Obama had opted for public financing. However, in 2004, some TV media opted to not air MoveOn.org commercials. So that might not be a good strategy for Obama supporters.

By declining public financing, the Obama campaign is able to use the funds they've raised (and will raise), and it seems to me less likely the corporate media will be able to manufacture reasons for refusing to air Obama campaign commercials. If money from Obama supporters flows to the Obama campaign, rather than MoveOn.org, then maybe the Obama campaign can also better control their message.

Obama's first campaign ad is pretty good, and doesn't slime the GOP or McCain. If all 527s do is try to slime Obama, and the Obama campaign can counter without going into the gutter, maybe more undecided voters will be turned off by 527 sliming tactics.



But my original thought was more along the lines of $84 million (or $168 million, if McCain also doesn't do public financing) not being drained from the federal treasury. We're already a bankrupt empire, I don't mind that we won't go even deeper into bankruptcy, even by the tiny fraction that $84 million represents as a portion of the total national debt.