Sen. Barack Obama recently hinted that he might break a promise and opt out of public financing for the general election because he's already "created a parallel public financing system where the American
people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the
Internet and finance it."
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, who has been badly outraised by Obama -- and Sen. Hillary Clinton too -- is
trying to turn his disadvantage into an advantage by laying the groundwork to accept public
money and chiding Obama for failing to do so. (Left unmentioned in McCain's rhetoric is that the RNC's general election fund is likely to dwarf that of the DNC.)
While forgoing public financing would certainly be an embarrassment for Obama, he might go ahead anyway. The most obvious reason is that he's already built a fundraising powerhouse that dwarfs his rivals. But he might also have a point about creating a better system of public financing.
For instance, Obama could easily turn a flip-flop story to his advantage by pledging to cap all campaign contributions at $250. Harnessing new voters, his popular brand and the Internet, he could promise to really build a people-based campaign. A million individuals could literally "max out" and feel like they have just as much influence as anyone else.
If you read Obama's statement closely, he may have even hinted at this -- although Marc Ambinder reports a campaign official says they have not even considered the idea.
It's not without risks, but if Obama did choose to cap contributions there's no way McCain could match him and still be competitive.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
Taegan, please post a link to the promise you mention in your post.
I've read some version of this notion a lot in the blogosphere, but as yet the only thing I've ever read is a commitment by Obama to negotiate in good faith with the Republican nominee. The goal there would be to try and get them both into the public financing system, if they can find a way to reasonably do so. To my ears, that falls FAR short of a promise.
So please back that up with a link or something. Thanks much.
Posted by: cvcobb01
| April 9, 2008 6:36 PM
Barack Obama is the candidate of change. He should change his mind, and allow his supporters to continue to fund his campaign, through the general election. McCain is a career presidential candidate who has better name recognition. Further, McCain has gotten a free ride this nomination period, so Obama will need all the help he can get. This is consistent with Obama's call for a different kind of government, where ordinary people get involved. I think it's the right decision for Obama, his supporters and the country.
Posted by: wanakee
| April 9, 2008 7:01 PM
cvcobb01,
If Obama opts out of public financing, then that is breaking the promise to negotiate with the GOP nominee in good faith.
wanakee, that's pretty funny : ". . . candidate of change. He should change his mind. . . ."
Posted by: Trickster
| April 9, 2008 10:33 PM
Trickster says:
"If Obama opts out of public financing, then that is breaking the promise to negotiate with the GOP nominee in good faith."
Wrong.
If Obama opts out because he can't reach an agreement with the GOP nom, or if the GOP nom isn't negotiating in good faith, he has kept his word.
What you meant to say is that 1) if he doesn't negotiate and his partner is willing to do so in good faith, or 2) if he does negotiate in bad faith and his partner does so in good faith, then he's broken his promise.
Very different from your comment. But I suspect you knew that.
Posted by: cvcobb01
| April 9, 2008 11:23 PM
cvcobb, I read this as a story about Obama deciding to opt out with no attempt at negotiation. Of course if he actually does negotiate and does so in good faith, it's not breaking the promise.
I think the claim that he's kept his promise because internet funding is a "new form of public financing" is Bushspeak gobbledygook, i.e., a fancy new way to lie. It reminds me of Bush running for President in 2000 and answering every question about his position on affirmative action by saying he was for "affirmative access," without ever explaining what he meant by that.
When there's an inconvenient promise, instead of breaking it, explaining why you did, and apologizing, you just try to change the language to make it look like you never broke any promise at all. A classic GOP maneuver in the Gingrich mold.
Posted by: Trickster
| April 9, 2008 11:43 PM
Jesus, Taegan. When did Obama make this "promise"? Come on.
Posted by: DavidNYC
| April 10, 2008 12:49 AM
Sen. Obama should in no way opt for public financing in a race with Sen. McCain. No matter what Sen. McCain says, he has already proven he can not be trusted to adhere to public financing, being that he has already violated the spending limits in the primary and I doubt he's going to start abiding by the rules in the general.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/24/mccain_breaks_spending_limits/
(Sorry, hyperlink doesn't seem to work)
Posted by: Jimmy's Brother
| April 10, 2008 1:14 AM
cvcobb: Below is a link to an article referencing the survey Obama completed in 2007. I recall this story getting some pretty significant coverage at the time, and put Obama's Democratic rivals under pressure to accept the same deal. John "Campaign Finance Reform" McCain was one of the only other candidates to also immediately accept the idea.
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/09/obama-s-public-financing-acrobatics.aspx
Posted by: cebostrom
| April 10, 2008 9:38 AM
Wrong. Obama's pledge was conditional.
Here's a link to an MDN release, which did the original survey, and where you can download the survey results in .pdf.
http://tinyurl.com/6phn4l
Posted by: bonyfingers
| April 10, 2008 3:22 PM
Post A Comment