Sen. Obama Should Accept Public Financing
There are plenty of insubstantial intra-party political kerfuffles to talk about right now — the likely negligible impact of last night’s debate, for example, or the fake plagiarism non-story, or the Delegate War That Never Will Be. Looking ahead, though, there’s something on the horizon that strikes me as more pressing.
Just over a year ago, we reported gleefully on Sen. Obama’s challenge to the Republicans to accept public financing in the general election (“Sen. Obama Throws Down the Public Financing Gauntlet”). Should Sen. McCain be the nominee, we reasoned, it was an especially potent challenge, given his history setting up the public financing system and apparent willingness to forgo it in order to remain competitive.
Then, in March, Sen. McCain accepted the challenge. We noted that development in a post called “A Victory for Principle,” observing that “the 2008 presidential campaign could be the first in U.S. history to be completely special interest-free. Let’s hope we have a chance to see that.”
Fast-forward 11 months. Sen. Obama is now outraising Sen. McCain 3-to-1. Of course, Sen. McCain is very publicly challenging Sen. Obama to remain true to his word, and so far Sen. Obama appears hesitant to do so.
Okay, here’s the thing. This blog was created to help generate interest in Sen. Obama’s candidacy before there was a candidacy. Given that, we’ve refrained from being critical of the campaign to the extent possible, staying out of scuffles like the Obama MySpace melee, which struck me as especially poorly handled by the campaign, though not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.
On this issue, though, the time has come for some tough love.
This has been a principled campaign of which Obama supporters and staffers can and should be proud. But part of being a principled campaign is that you have to stay true to your principles.
I know that accepting public financing would mean walking away from a boatload of money. And I know that the boat we are talking about here is the size of Rhode Island. But that can’t matter now. John McCain wants the reformer mantle, he wants the “change candidate” title. Sen. McCain has been in Washington forever and is as much a change agent as he is a real estate agent, and he doesn’t deserve it. But if Sen. Obama walks away from this pledge, McCain will get it.
Come on, Senator Obama! I know you’ve got plenty of seasoned advisors telling you that with your fundraising power and donor base you will be able to bury Sen. McCain in ads and placards. They are wrong. America does not let its presidential candidates buy elections. And even if we did, you are not interested in winning that way. It runs contrary to the whole message of your campaign.
Stay on the path you’ve trailblazed, the path of principle and integrity and substance that so many Americans have so eagerly followed you down. Show the country that it’s not all talk. Raise the bar for all of us, and we’ll reward you by clearing it every time.
I hope the Obama camp comes through on this, I really do. I think it’s crucial to a November victory. Not only would it completely change the landscape of American politics for the better by cutting out special interests, but it would prove that the principles that gird the Obama campaign are not for sale, even for hundreds of millions of dollars.
Best of all, we’d still win.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 am EST
The problem with public financing is the utter mountain of money that can come in through 527 funded efforts.
It’s a mistake to limit your ability to respond to this especially when Obama has sounded similar clean campaign refrains on 527 as well. No response to swiftboating, cocaine use and muslim manchurian nonsense is not what I want to see happen. (at one stage in this campaign about 10% of people thought Obama was a muslim for example). Not sure about the Manchurian part though. LOL
Personally I think the number of small (and very small) donors to Obama are left out if he accepts Federal matching. The Obama campaign is truly a historical grassroots acheivement in fundraising. That fundraising reflects the voice of the people moreso than an agreement to take FMF.
Look, I want a good President not promising “more wars” and 100 years in Iraq. And using my donation as well as countless like me who have contributed small amounts gets that done that is what I want to see happen.
If there were no 527 wave coming (and it most certainly is with McCain’s own limitations in funds) I’d say go for it. But just today there is an article about McCain backing out of matching in the primaries and being warned by the FEC. He’s already a hypcorite on the issue so I doubt he can take the reformer mantle on this issue. I think its unfortunate Obama made a promise when he had no idea that the people want to give him enough to campaign on a level playing field which includes his personal responses to 527 attacks. I sure hope that is his view becuase its mine.
Unfortunatley at this stage of the game in national politics the dream of running a level playing field campaign that would allow all to participate with the same basic resources is wishful thinking. I also think its problematic from a first amendment point of view to limit some rich person (and we have seen a lot of them) with enough resources to finance their message. Call me libertarian on this point but its how I see it.
A law limiting the first amendment is like killing the patient to cure the disease. I mean after all its the first amendment for a reason. So I have donated to Obama in hopes that the first amendment message he carriers can be heard regardless of the wave that comes against him.
In my opijnion once a 527 hits Obama should send out a fundraising request. I’ll send what I can to stop the madness that the current system allows and in fact encourages. Because accepting matching doesn;t change this reality but limits the ability to respond to it, it would be a big mistake to take it.
I for one will be glad he did not.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm EST
Thanks very much for your response, Toni. You make a strong case. I’m not convinced that limiting political donations is a violation of the First Amendment, however. The Supreme Court also disputed that argument in Buckley v. Valeo. They argued that donations can be limited in order to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. People remain free to voice their support, and when an attack is launched on Sen. Obama, I have no doubt that he will be able to garner extensive media coverage by which to refute it.
As for the donor base, I agree that the grassroots support Sen. Obama has built is crucial, but I don’t think accepting matching funds boxes those supporters out of the process. There is still plenty of work to be done and ways to get involved. Money can also still be raised under the guidelines, and the government will match up to $250 per donation. The limit is on how that money can be spent, as I understand it.
I share your concerns about attack response capacity, and think the 527 loophole must eventually be closed. But if both candidates are committed to the system and publicly and vociferously condemn 527s, which I don’t think is out of the question, I believe it could work this time around.
Thanks again for your comment and for reading the site.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm EST
I have to agree with the substance of what Toni C said…..
If Barack and John McCain could come to some kind of enforceable agreement to ban or limit 527 spending on both sides and limit the spending by both party committees (at the moment the RNC has more money in the bank than the DNC, and has had for the past year or so, I understand) then this would be a good thing and create a fair and equal playing field without the taint of any special interest money.
Baring that however, I don’t think that Obama should unilaterally disarm for the sake of a principle that John McCain is busily violating his own self. It seems that he’s trying to get out of the public financing committment he made for the Republican primaries (because he needed the money….) now that he’s the probable nominee and wants to access the full power of the Republican fund raising machine to begin campaigning against the Democratic nominee (Barack?) now and up until the convention. It seems that Senator McCain is already violating the spirit of the pledge by trying to game the system now for his own political financial advantage. I don’t see that the Barack’s pledge is necessarily operable if McCain seems to have only a convenient and opportunistic commitment to public financing himself.
And I think a case can be made that Barack Obama has done campaign finance reform from the ground up. He’s just about to reach the 1 million donor mark, made up, to a signifigant degree, of small donors like myself giving 25 or 50 dollars when I can. That’s a kind of organic, democratizing and empowering campaign finance reform that John McCain can only dream of.
As long as there an attack machine with access to unlimited and unregulated funds that can be used to supplement whatever John McCain and Barack Obama are allowed to spend directly, then I think we have to recognize that we are engaging in more than a high minded civics lesson, we engaged in a power stuggle the likes of which this country may have never seen. We are trying (lest we forget) to elect the first black President of the United States. There will be a p0werful and well funded wall of resistance to that once we get to the general election, and we will need every dime we can to overpower it.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm EST
I believe the idea of public funding for campaign is very wise. But it then turns into a betrayal of trust when candidates exploit it for their personal gains. One big case is John McCain’s pledge to a bank for a $1 million loan on the basis of taking a public funding. See the full story from Washington Post article below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503639_ pf.html
Based on this singular move, I would advise Barack Obama not take the public funding to fight John McCain in November. McCain’s offer were not completely genuine but as a result of his fundraising incapability and an effort to curtail his opponent’s strengths.
Taking public funding would be rewarding John McCain for being disingenuous. The democratic nominee should give away the election to the republicans by tying his/her hands while the other party could boast of innumerable 527s and Swiftboaters.
What do you think?
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm EST
F.Igwealor and Rick, thanks for your responses. Your points are well-taken, and I expect the Obama campaign agrees with you. I know high-mindedness is often a quick and easy way to lose an election. I may be wrong or naive to think that McCain could potentially live up to a pledge that involves condemning and actively discouraging 527s, but if that is a possibility then I think we should do whatever we can to realize it.
Additionally, on a practical level I think Obama opens himself up for a big hit if he backs away from public financing now, both from McCain and the media. After generally positive coverage the media in particular is chomping at the bit for something to pounce on, something that runs contrary to his message, and this could fit the bill. Then again, maybe I’m overstating the importance of this issue and no one will fault him for raising as much as he can.
Thanks as always for reading the site (and for keeping it grounded in political reality).
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm EST
“A law limiting the first amendment is like killing the patient to cure the disease. I mean after all its the first amendment for a reason. ”
I didn;t mean to imply that the donation was speech (though others have including at least two Justices) but that there is no way to limit the rich person from spending whatever he wants. Buckley concedes that. As configured, the whole system ultimatly could revert to only the wealthy running in my opinion. And pity the poor soul that relies on matching funds.
On buckley,
“However, the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from his personal funds were found to be constitutionally infirm in that they placed severe restrictions on protected expression and association, yet lacked any compelling countervailing government interest necessary to sustain them.”
from wiki
That analysis pretty much says you can limit donations of property but you can’t limit spending of that property to exercise speech. That is where 527s and uber-rich candidates live.
It’s a real shame that Buckley (and campaign finance reform generally) produces the likes of Steve Forbes, Bloomberg, Perot, Romney (you see the trend$$) running for President. It also encourages abusive use of 527s. I think the rich guys have a right to use their dough to campaign. THough I realize i’m more Libertarian on this point than progressive, I just think that is what the constitution lays out as consequence.
I like Obama for one of the reasons he states. WE can get a message out, we can fund, we can put our money where our mouth is. The problem is not that the most money can win and drown out the message of the underfunded, the problem is the message of the people has never been able to galvanize into a wealth primary to compete against the first amendment of intersted parties including the rich guy and their wink wink 527s.
Obama has awakened the grassroots such that a rich guy would realize he could end the campaign a broke loser going against the collective resources of the “yes we can” people and their meager donations.
Romney learned this with the “least funded” Huckabee basically destroying his ability to go one on one. While I don;t like Huckabee I admire his David vs Goliath determination in the process. We overvalue the ability to “buy” the election. McCain too was just about broke heading to New Hampshire.
So far from being dismayed by the issue, I am actually encouraged that a half million Obama grassroots Davids can so easily deal with Goliaths like the Clintons.
Obama can beat MCCain with matching funds but I hope he chooses not to go that way.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:21 pm EST
As a casual reader of this website, I’ve found the informed and intense debate on this issue to be fascinating! I would leave the interpretation of the First Amendment and the legal precedents to the lawyers and the courts. The issue here is sticking with a pledge to accept only matching funds in the general election. Obama has run a remarkable campaign and has touched a nerve among the people for his straight talk, his unwillingness to accept the status quo and his general honesty. I take JHC’s point to be that if Obama reneges on a pledge of this importance, he risks undermining all he has accomplished. I share his view on this. Obama should not waffle, hedge or duck this issue. He should confront it directly and demand from John McCain a pledge that this campaign will be run in a different way from the last several. Both candidates should actively discourage supporters from negative 527 campaigns and disown them if they happen. And Obama should honor his pledge, not seek to take advantage of his new popularity to raise vast amounts of campaign cash to bury his opponent. You can’t run as the candidate of change, of hope for cleaner and more responsive government, and at the first opportunity jettison a principle for a financial advantage. Honesty and consistency will be a lot more important in this campaign than money, or so we can hope. Gee, I wonder who got me thinking like that?
April 9th, 2008 at 8:40 am EST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9O29bt9meA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIc-obMasFE