Obama backs out of public financing

[kombayn]

You want to get into a debate about flip-flopping? John McCain is a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry and trust me McCain is going to take public financing, because he can't even raise a quarter out of a change machine. The dollar he inserts, it spits it right back out. I still don't see what the big deal is, Obama wants to win this election and he has every right not to take public money. If conservatives want to grasp at straws here, they can but McCain is doomed this election unless Obama completely blunders and does something really, really, really retarded.

[Stylerod]

Obama got money hungry. It's politics. Win at all costs. It's normal for politicians to lie to win. People just need to realize Obama isn't the 2nd coming of Christ. He's just the standard politician.

[Scrum]

I'm not quite sure where he lied in this.


He said he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election".

Not the same as saying he will use it no matter what. I do love that people with "conservative" in their profile are complaining about him not using public funds.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I'm not quite sure where he lied in this.


He said he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election".

Not the same as saying he will use it no matter what. I do love that people with "conservative" in their profile are complaining about him not using public funds.

He said he wanted to use public funds which limits the millions the candidate could spend. Now that people are launching money his way he decided there should be no limit. I guess because it benefits him. He's a democrat. He wants the money.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I gotta admit, this one has me a bit confused. I wasn't really sure what "Public" money meant or why he was for it before he decided to be against it. But it seems that "Public" money is transparent money. Everyone knows where it came from. What he is doing now has no transparency, which is what he used to be against.

Am I getting that right?

No, he's not taking any money from PAC's or registered lobbyists. That means all of his donations will come from people like you and me.. and he's poised to make a LOT with it.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He said he wanted to use public funds which limits the millions the candidate could spend. Now that people are launching money his way he decided there should be no limit. I guess because it benefits him. He's a democrat. He wants the money.

Hm, yes.. Republicans don't want money? Give me a fucking break.

Obama has done more to open up the process to transparency this election than any Republican, just look at what he did with making the DNC also follow his policy.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

This was his excuse for changing his mind (flip flopping?) on the Public funds. But he, of course, exaggerated quite a bit.

And the facts show that it's the DNC that is masters of the "broken" system.

So much for the change part of Hope and Change. He's just another politician, lying and exaggerating to make his other lies more plausible.


Factcheck.org: Obama's Lame Money Claim | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

Nice of you to point out old, outdated information and ignore that Obama has told the DNC they'll follow his lead and not accept lobbyist money anymore..

[Ron Burgundy]

Politico - For most voters, Barack Obama's shift away from public financing is not as big a deal as the mounting death toll in Iraq, surging gas prices — or even what they're going to make for dinner tonight.

But Obama's announcement Thursday that he would become the first candidate to opt out of the public financing program for the general election was a big deal for some of the nation's most influential newspaper editorial boards, which have long been ardent champions of campaign finance reform and which had thought they'd found a kindred spirit on the issue.

Friday morning, scathing editorials in many top broadsheets characterized Obama's move as a self-interested flip-flop, dismissed his efforts to cast it as a principled stand and charged that Obama wasn't living up to the reformer image around which he has crafted his political identity.

The scolding could mark a turning point in what has been, on balance, fawning treatment of Obama, an Illinois Senator and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, on editorial pages.

While the influence of editorial boards has diminished as the media has fragmented, they still carry weight with opinion leaders and undecided voters.

Obama's Republican opponent, John McCain, will participate in the public financing system, which this year will provide $84 million in taxpayer funds to candidates who agree to limit their spending to that amount. Obama is expected to raise many times more than that.

Many of the same top editorial boards that have criticized McCain's unwavering support for a long military presence in Iraq have also lauded his efforts to pass stricter campaign finance, ethics and lobbying laws.

“The fact that McCain has been willing over the years to take the lead on these issues, when it's arguably not in his self-interest, is one measure of character that over the years we've respected,” said Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of The Washington Post.

In deciding which candidates to support, Hiatt told Politico that*the Post's editorial board looks at campaign finance reform issues as “a significant factor, but among many factors that we would consider.”

The board viewed Obama's backtrack on public financing “as an important issue and also as a test of whether he would put principles he said were important to him above political calculation. And he didn't. That tells us something. It doesn't tell us everything.”

The Post didn't endorse candidates in the presidential primaries, but by some counts Obama racked up as many as 120 daily newspaper endorsements, compared to around 40 for his main rival, New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. McCain racked up more than 30 such endorsements during the Republican primary.

Obama's leadership in passing a yet-to-be-implemented provision requiring disclosure of contributions bundled by lobbyists likely appealed to editorial boards enamored with clean governance issues.

Several editorial boards had praised his earlier pledge to take public financing in the general election if his opponent agreed to do the same.

Of the editorial boards that opined Friday about his breaking the pledge, most of those that endorsed him during the primary were aggressive in their criticism.

The Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial board*called the decision “as disappointing as it is disingenuous,” while The Boston Globe's board*wrote that it “deals a body blow … to his own reputation as a reform candidate.” And The Baltimore Sun's editorial board*called it “a major disappointment for those struggling to restrain the pernicious influence of special interests in American politics.”

The New York Times' editorial board, which endorsed Clinton after allegedly leaning toward Obama, wrote that*“Obama has come up short” of “his evocative vows to depart from self-interested politics.”

Obama attempted a preemptive defense of his new position by arguing that his massive base of small online donors constitute a “parallel public financing,” and that he needed to exit the program to defend himself from the independent spending of 527 groups, long a bugaboo of campaign finance reformers. Many editorial boards, though, have been outright dismissive of this argument.

The Washington Post opined that Obama's “effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.”

And USA Today, which also did not endorse any candidates, said Obama put “expediency over principle,” was “disingenuous about his reasons for opting out of public financing” and proved he's not a “real reformer.”

There was hardly the same level of indignation when McCain came under fire from Democrats for using the promise of receiving public financing in the primary election to secure a loan before deciding not to take the funds.

The Post's Friday editorial asserted that McCain “played games with taking federal matching funds for the primaries until it turned out he didn't need them.”

But Hiatt told Politico that he doesn't count McCain's move as “in quite the same category” as Obama's broken pledge.

“To be the first candidate to reject public financing in a general campaign, particularly after having argued that that wouldn't be a good thing, is a fairly significant development,” he said.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080621/pl_politico/11242 [link]

[Rouger2]

I also am disappointed at what Obama did. I believe in public financing. It keeps candidates from being influence by big contributers. They do say that Obama's money is coming from small contributers but probably not all of his donations are so I think he did wrong.

[motivez]

He doesn't accept lobbyist money or PAC money, so his candidacy is certainly being financed by the public.

[avsp]

He still has lobbiests working for parts of his campaign & he's not followed thru on his offer to stay with just public financing, ..., tho' his arguement as to why seems odd to me, ..., that McCain wasnt clearly offering to take him up on it

[Stylerod]

The board viewed Obama's backtrack on public financing as an important issue and also as a test of whether he would put principles he said were important to him above political calculation. And he didn't. That tells us something. It doesn't tell us everything.

This says it pretty well.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He said he wanted to use public funds which limits the millions the candidate could spend. Now that people are launching money his way he decided there should be no limit. I guess because it benefits him. He's a democrat. He wants the money.

McCain backed out of the public finance system after Super Tuesday, even after he took out two Million dollar loans against it.

Notice how that gets no attention in the media.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Scrum

McCain backed out of the public finance system after Super Tuesday, even after he took out two Million dollar loans against it.

Notice how that gets no attention in the media.

It has been covered repeatedly on television news media. But usually when its brought up it's dismissed as unimportant, which it is. What do you care what he uses as collateral?

[David Octavius]

The public finance system was meant to level the playing field - if one candidate opts out it makes no sense for the other to stay in, it would become a huge disadvantage to opt in as the one candidate is limited in the amount of funds while other has an unlimited ceiling in which to operate. That is CERTAINLY NOT the objective of public financing.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

It has been covered repeatedly on television news media. But usually when its brought up it's dismissed as unimportant, which it is.

So Obama is supposed to keep with the public financing even after McCain dropped out of it?

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

What do you care what he uses as collateral?

He took a campaign loan out against public money he's never going to receive.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

It has been covered repeatedly on television news media. But usually when its brought up it's dismissed as unimportant, which it is. What do you care what he uses as collateral?

Uh, the law requires him to use the public finance system since he used it as collateral to secure a loan.

It's a pretty big deal that he's trying to skirt the law. Of course, with him trying to secure Bush's third term, it'd just be a continuation of a long running policy of violating the law, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

This says it pretty well.

He said he'd pursue an agreement with the Republican candidate. Obviously McCain is trying to avoid his obligations to opt into the public financing system, why should Obama stick with it?

Obama's campaign will be funded by the public, while McCain's will be funded by lobbyists, pac's, and big business..

The difference between what Obama is doing and the public financing system is that instead of the money being doled out by all taxpayers, people will be completely financing his campaign of their own free will.. while McCain's will be bought and paid for by special interests.

When it comes to openness, the Obama camp wins hands down.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

He said he'd pursue an agreement with the Republican candidate. Obviously McCain is trying to avoid his obligations to opt into the public financing system, why should Obama stick with it?

Obama's campaign will be funded by the public, while McCain's will be funded by lobbyists, pac's, and big business..

The difference between what Obama is doing and the public financing system is that instead of the money being doled out by all taxpayers, people will be completely financing his campaign of their own free will.. while McCain's will be bought and paid for by special interests.

When it comes to openness, the Obama camp wins hands down.

Yeah, all 1% of McCain's money being bought buy special interest Remember that number I showed you? We know this because public money is transparent. Obama's money is not. You can say it's people paying of their own free will. But how do you know that? It can be cooperations giving in the names of their employees. It can be countries giving in the name of citizens (ie Clintons Chinese scandle).

Everyone was bitching how much money politicians spend on elections. "It's out of control!!!" everyone said. Now, since it's Obama, no one cares?