The faux outrage over Obama's campaign finance decision
I've been shamelessly spamming this comment from DairyStateMom everywhere I can and decided to post it here, too:
Okay, let me get this straight. John McCain has 527s who he "can't control," and takes all kinds of money and help from lobbyists, is a good guy because he supports public financing -- except when he doesn't want to follow the spending limits in the primary season, even though he opted in to public financing so he could get a loan to spend more money than public financing would allow him to spend. Barack Obama has a whole bunch of little donors, which is supposed to be the whole point of the public financing system, making little money more important than big money, and has expressly said he doesn't want 527 ads or lobbyists' money or help -- and Obama is the sharp-elbowed Chicago political operator who's throwing principle under the bus to get elected? I'm sorry, what planet are people living on?!?!?!?
Advertisement
I'm from Uranus -- and you?
June 20, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
My planet is made of spam.
Shorter: “McCain’s not much better than Obama on campaign finance!”
Wow, there’s a winning argument. Obama had fought the good fight for campaign finance reform and now has set reform back by years just because he raised more money than he thought he would. Lipstick won’t help.
June 21, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um. . .
I'd like to win for a change.
June 21, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
PB, "I'd like to win for a change."
Now see, that is a winning argument and without the BS. Let's not pretend that this is something it isn't. Campaign finance is the root of all government evil, but I certainly don't think winning should be sacrificed to it in this case.
It is arguable as to whether he had to do this to win and he didn't have to do it so clumsily, but the more his campaign and supporters try to justify or spin it as something noble the more people will turn away.
FISA is even worse. These kinds of decisions say something about how a candidate will govern. If you think that once they get into office they can then change colors, just look at the Dem congress. Because of campaign finance and big money, an office holder has to run a permanent campaign. When a candidate takes a line, like Obama did yesterday about "protecting us from terror" as top priority, it's a good bet that he will tow that line to stay in power.
June 21, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you on FISA. I would have liked to have seen a strong pivot on that issue and throw it back at the McCain camp.
In this particular case, I just can't get that worked up about Obama rejecting public funds. The 1.5 million donor argument is powerful.
I would probably be angrier if he rejected public funding and his campaign was being financed through more traditional lobbyist/PAC coalitions. Or he started wearing Exxon-Mobil patches on his suits.
June 21, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering that Obama's initial agreement to the public financing was heavily qualified from the start, I'm a little surprised by the level of outrage myself.
For one thing: McCain isn't just "not much better" on campaign finance, he's far worse. HE BROKE HIS OWN FREAKIN' LAW. The McCain/Feingold law. The only reason the Dems haven't been able to file a complaint against him is because the FEC can't make quorum right now.
For another, Obama has also resolved--and gotten the DNC to resolve--to not take contributions from federal lobbyists or PACs. That counts for something.
For yet another? Obama has been adament enough about the 527s that moveon.org has disbanded theirs.
On the scale of things? Obama's doing pretty well with ethics and campaign finance.
June 21, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a classic inside-the-beltway problem-of-the-day issue that no one actually cares about. The canonical 'American' stance on money is simply the more, the better, and if it's yours, you get to spend it.
From this point of view, it's puzzling and probably unamerican to limit intake. The fact that Obama is going to be hugely funded, especially by business big & small, will be seen by everyone as the ultimate stamp of legitimacy. And it will hasten the tipping point in the upcoming Republican wipe-out.
June 21, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sheep graze.
June 21, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if he had opted into public financing and said no to his million and half donors for the final push, everyone would have been calling him a delusional idealist and an idiot right now. I for one am proud that I am a tiny little piece in his juggernaut. His fundraising feels like a paradigm shift to the next level beyond what the McCain Feingold law was trying to do.
June 21, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "promise" Obama made was to try to get the Republican and all nominees to agree to public financing and rein in 527s so the system would be fair for everyone. He never promised he'd unilaterally disarm.
McCain not only didn't negotiate in good faith, he broke the law and refuses to even try and rein in outside groups.
Public financing works by checking the $3 box on your tax returns. It's your own little earmark. John McCain hates earmarks except like with everything else when he doesn't.
June 21, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is just mad because he couldn't cajole Obama into making a strategic blunder by accepting public funds. With that said, I am very concerned about Obama's donation prospects after this telecom nonsense! Only, not really. His donations will skyrocket after the convention. I think Sept. will be about 45-50 million.
June 21, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There were no negotiations. It was all a gimmick and the poster, like so many folks, are gleefully playing the role of rube and expressing real outrage about folks who see through the rubanization of the Obama right or wrong crowd.
Come on folks. Plenty of time till November. Join the real Democrats like the undersigned who recognize that our candidate resides on earth. Free yourself, put your tongue a little bit in your cheek, and vote Obama. He's human, he's political, and whether the rubes like it or not he is going to do what it takes to win the election--like any effective politician should.
Or don't listen to me and write silly posts with nonsense defenses about flip flops whenever Obama prudently strays from the notion that he's above it all.
June 21, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd. I was equally impressed by the comment from DairyStateMom and glad to see you pick it up and run with it.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/cheryl-crist.php
June 21, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama getting millions from small donors (and therefore not being so dependent on donations from corporate lobbyists) is the best thing ever to happen in the way of campaign finance reform. As long as Obama represents the interests of all those small donors against the interests of the corporations, Obama's tactic will be a victory for reform.
The problems with the public financing system in place today are so great that I'm fine seeing it scrapped. Obama may have flip-flopped a bit on this--but hey, things change, and adapting to change is a good thing, not a bad thing.
June 21, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
PB, "I'd like to win for a change."
Now see, that is a winning argument and without the BS. I agree that if this is what was needed to win (arguable), it had to be done, though it was handled clumsily to say the least. But why try to paint it as something it isn’t? That a lot of small-donor individuals gave along with bundled donations from big corporations and special interest industries doesn’t justify reversing campaign finance reform. When the campaign and supporters try to justify this or frame it as noble even, it only turns more people away. Campaign finance is the root of all evil government but reform can only be carried out by the winners. Ask yourself what message Big Pharma or the insurance industry takes from this though.
FISA is worse. When a candidate takes a line, like Obama did yesterday making the “protect against terror” line top priority, they will usually adhere to that line once elected. Look at the Dem congress or even Bush for examples. Because of campaign finance system and big money, office holders are in a permanent campaign and so they govern how they run, to stay in power with the support of the power players. Campaign finance laws in the primary are ambiguous compared to the general, but I agree McCain has abandoned his campaign reform and acted badly. That doesn’t make Obama’s reneging on his promise look any better by comparison and pretty much kills campaign finance reform in the foreseeable future.
June 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please ignore this as the ________ software has fooled me again (shame on me) and this is a rewrite of a reply that supposedly didn't post.
June 21, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink