I'm confused-public financing

[hixx]

Can anyone explain this whole thing to me? I'm so confused.

So Obama says with Russert back in Feb. he will use public financing...but now he's saying he won't and everyone is all mad at him (mccain).

So wait...

I thought Obama's big thing was that he wasn't going to take this money? But he said he would to Russert? Why would he say that? It seems against his platform.

Why is McCain so mad? Because it makes him look stupid? Because he will still take public financing?

Where does this public financing come from?

Is Obama doing this because he can raise more money than MctotheCain privately, so it really screws with him?

I thought Obes had always said he wouldn't take this money...

I'm so confused...Ive tried reading up on it but I'm getting more confused, I need someone to esplain.

Hixx

[stetsko]

Basically, not taking public financing frees you to take money from sources that the McCain/Feingold laws won't let you take money from and removes the spending limits attached to the money.

But since the DNC and RNC aren't limited in THEIR spending, it's usually a moot point, with a big advantage recently to the GOP, b/c the RNC has a ton more cash on hand and Republican-allied 527 groups do most of the dirty work. (Swift boat!)

Basically, strategically, Obama is saying that Obama as a canidate can raise more money that the DNC can as a party. Which is probably true.

K.

[Edison]

My understanding was that Obama wanted to keep the general election open to public financing as long as there was some modicum of agreement (if not full reform) between the DEMs and the GOP regarding the accepting of large donations from lobbyists and special interest groups.
That 'bribe' money always tends to be a HUGE part of public financing for general elections.

Obama's lawyers met with McCain's, hoping to agree on some mutual boundaries in what they should accept, and from whom, during the general election. For the sake of our current campaign finance system that arguably suffers from conflict of interest and needs some serious reform.

Obama's lawyers came back saying McCain wasn't interested. McCain apparently has no problem taking money, no matter how sullied it is or who is holding the strings at the other end.
So Obama pulled out entirely and is not taking any of it.
It's a bold and brave move, and one that could potentially cost him millions in lost campaign finances, ..but Obama is now free to raise all he can/wants to by himself. Which could end up being more than McCain ends up with.

McCain's spin? That Obama is 'going back on his word' and 'changing his position.' Consequently; 'how can anyone possibly trust him?'

[stevescholz]

From http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/19/124626/485/583/538429


Actually, Obama didn't reverse any previous stance. He previously said he would be willing to negotiate comprehensive limits that included 527s and other outside groups. However, McCain made it very clear that he had no interest in such limits on outside groups (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_aide_blames_McCain_on_publicfinancing.html).


Drawing from that and Kate and Edison's posts, yes, more money can be raised by not taking public financing. If Obama ties himself down to that, he's limiting himself needlessly.

What some people forget right now is the RNC is raising a ****-load of money to use for McCain this fall. McCain's own campaign may be in financial trouble, but the RNC can make up the difference. If Obama and the DNC work together, they can match that, or outraise the RNC.

So once again, Obama is setting the tone of this election. By not going with the system as it stands, he can rally against it and say "we need real change in Washington."

Smart. Very smart.

And from the same link above:


Of course, let's not forget that McCain opted in to the public finance system in the primary, then backed out after using his opt-in to secure a loan and get on the ballot in several states -- breaking not just his promise, but the law as well. Of course, hypocrisy never stopped Republicans, and this issue won't be any different. But let's not pretend that hypocrisy isn't there.

There's one other delicious irony at work -- don't you find it funny that McCain, the Republican, is embracing government funding for the election while Obama, the Democrat, would rather be self-reliant?

[Edison]

Thanks for clarifying even more, Steve.

It's this kind of thing that I wish the mainstream media covered properly.
Is anyone going to focus on why Obama made this choice, and the larger problem he's speaking about? Likely not.
We can even assume ABC and FOX will take the divisive spin. "Obama's Public Funding flip-flop flap?"

Sadly, lots of people happily eat up this kind of spin propaganda. We have people in our country who still believe that Saddam Hussein orchestrated 9/11. And that Obama is a Muslim.

Our great nation will probably always suffer from the 'dumbass' demographic. As long as there are greedy divisive people to take advantage of them.

What has been interesting is how much the internet has played a part in this election. In spite of the amount of goofy bullshit that's always been a part of the WWW, ..more now than ever it's been the surrogate media of people who really want positive change in this country.
The voices are carrying. Especially through YouTube.

[hixx]

Ugh, okay, I'm getting there.

So...some of this public funding comes from the taxpayers yes? The money we choose to give from our tax returns?

And some of it comes from these 527's and lobbyists?

But, and I love me some Obama, he did say that he would use it and now he isn't. He did right? With this expectation of reform of the money?

And is he really "being a new politician" if what he's really doing is making it so there are no caps to his spending?

And can't McCain say "well I'm not using it either" if he has all this money from the RNC? Is the RNC money part of this public funding money?

Ack. Sorry.

Hixx

[Gass]

What some people forget right now is the RNC is raising a BOAT-load of money to use for McCain this fall.

Fixed.........

[Steev]

I like to call lobbyists, "lobby cats." Like cute little kittens that roam around in the lobby, licking things and making them all silly wet.

[Biddle]

Sorry, Gass, your fix wasn't correct. I checked McCain's website and found the preferred verbiage.

What some people forget right now is the RNC is raising a CUNT-load of money to use for McCain this fall.

BOOM! Eat it Republicans! Two can play the whole "latch on to irrelevant social gaffes and reference them indefinitely" game!

Yeah...

Jerks!

COB out...

[stetsko]

Hixx,

Given that the RNC will NEVER voluntarily cap party spending (nor for that matter would the DNC) and that the RNC has a much bigger coffer than the DNC does, Obama not taking public money doesn't remove a cap from his spending so much as allow him to spend like McCain. (Think of it this way: the RNC has $10 to spend. The DNC has $5 to spend. McCain is taking $5 in public money, Obama is raising $10 in campaign funds.)

In fact, by NOT taking public money, Obama can rely on individual donors to fund his campaign, rather than soft money and lobbyists. (He's actually got a pretty good record at not taking money from the "bad guys," Rezko et al nonwithstanding.) In a lot of ways, this is the natural extension of the Howard Dean internet phenomenon. Lots of people giving $25-100, rather than industry lobbyists giving the max. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in the press, but if Obama's team gets out in front of it, it's really easy to spin moving away from public funds as the populist choice.

K.

[speedymarie]

Hixx, maybe this will help.

It's a Q&A from USA Today on how this whole thing works, and what it means

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-19-opt-out-qa_N.htm

[macarthur31]

The reason why McSame is whining about this is because it's one of the very few pegs he's got to hit Obama with at all. And it's an awfully tricky peg since it's so "process"-y, so he's trying to simplify it as "look! Obama's lying to you."

Meanwhile, McCain is the same guy who just started advocating for offshore drilling, and simultaneously taking 2 mill recently from Big Oil for his coffers. Nice! (Reckless gamble, actually -- since offshore drilling is a virtual taboo for areas that depend on coastal tourism, like, say, Florida.)

I'm sure when Obama started, he didn't anticipate that he'd be the biggest moneymaking phenomenon in political history. At that point, burnishing his "reformer cred" by talking that he'd try to abide by public financing was obvious. However, if he actually stuck to public financing (when his opponent has no intention on stick with it himself), would be political suicide. It'd be worst than when Kerry got ambushed by the SwiftBoaters.

I'm fine with him "breaking the pledge" since the it's all pretty much small money that's funding his campaign. He's actually saving the government 80 million.

Meanwhile, McTorture had actually used public campaign financing as collateral (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503639.html) to keep his primary candidacy afloat. The reckless gamble worked out for him because he won the early primaries, so that re-jump started his campaign. However, if he had lost, he would've paid back that bank loan by sticking around in the campaign long enough to raise funds to pay that loan back. Now, that's slimy. (espesh if Cindy Mac is raking in sick Anheuser-Busch money.)

[stevescholz]

From the great piece Speedy posted above (thanks, Speedy):


Why is the decision controversial?
Obama has portrayed himself as a new kind of politician who would like to curb the influence of money and special interests over the political system. In March of last year, the Obama campaign stated that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election" if he won the Democratic primary election. But the campaign backed away from those statements as Obama's popularity increased and the campaign contributions started flowing in. The more his fundraising efforts paid off, the more the campaign talked about pursuing that goal only as an "option" he would explore.

<snip>

Republicans claim Obama went back on his word. "In his decision to break his promise and forgo our nation's public financing system, Barack Obama failed to demonstrate the kind of principled leadership that Americans are looking for in our next President," RNC chairman Mike Duncan said in a statement.

Campaign finance reform groups are also disappointed. "We had hoped and expected that Sen. Obama would stick with the public pledge he made to accept public financing and spending limits for the presidential general election," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.

Obama's campaign, however, maintains that he never promised to participate and point to his reliance on contributions from small donors — rather than lobbyists and political action committees — as evidence that he has "already changed the way campaigns are funded."

So the "controversy" is fake. Obama said something last year which he changed his mind about once he saw what would benefit his campaign. That's not controversy. That's wisdom applied as leadership.

The RNC framing of this won't stick because a) it's a hollow argument and b) most people don't care about this as an "issue" when gas prices, home foreclosures, layoffs and natural disasters are hurting so many people.

And yes, Ms Hixx, the public in public financing means this is our money at work. So, if you consider it that way, Obama isn't draining our public funds in his race the Presidency. He's respecting the public coffers. And while money doesn't guarantee a win, it's nice to know that Obama could actually collect donations from every single supporter he has in the US.

By the way, my original uncensored quote, now corrected, was:


Originally Posted by stevescholz http://www.chicagoimprov.org/images/cin2007/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chicagoimprov.org/showthread.php?p=37573#post37573)
What some people forget right now is the RNC is raising a LOBBYCAT-load of money to use for McCain this fall.

[hixx]

Okay okay, its all starting to come together, thanks you guys. I definitely understand more than I did.

Now, what happens to the public money when Obama doesn't use it?

And okay, I'm still confused about the whole lobbyist and these 527's...how are these related to the public funding money?

You guys rule. Thankee.

Hixx

[hixx]

Whoop, sorry, one more question. I've been reading a lot of commentary where people are saying that they really like the public funding system, even if it has to be overhauled. Why do people love it so much? Wouldn't they prefer that the candidate raise as much money as they can on their own?



Hixx

[macarthur31]

Hixx -- previous to the 2004 election, there was legislation that allowed the formation of 527 organizations, which were virtual political nonprofits. The hook is that these 527s aren't necessarily under the purview of the DNC or the RNC. "Swiftboaters for Truth" is probably the most infamous 527 from that election, while Moveon.org is an example of another 527 that also garnered headlines for it's "Petraeus/Betray Us" ad a year ago. These 527s can run ads, they can send mail, etc to push their agenda forward.

The thing about 527s is that McCain is most likely coordinating with them. Since he's limited to 80 million, he can lean on these republican 527s to do the other work (smearing, voter suppresion, etc) and they don't have any limits in terms of monies they can raise. They're not related to public funding money at all -- since 527s are nonprofits that raise money through their own channels. I don't think they're tax-writeoff donations, however.

That's why Obama didn't bother with the "Public Financing" angle -- it's pointless since McCain may say he's just using his 80 million public dollars, but in reality all these other 527s are going to support his candidacy.

Public Financing is still a work in progress. I do believe that Obama was open to exploring it. However, I think that enthusiasm waned when he raised 100 large by himself in just the primary.

I think people love public financing as if it were in a vacuum on its own. I also think that the side that tends to raise less money prefers public financing since it's more of an "equalizer." Until this election, Republicans have traditionally raised uber-tons more money than Dems. However, in this election, Obama has turned the formula upside down. If you noticed back in February, McCain was already hinting at this hoping to make this an issue because even he saw the Obama money train coming a mile away. It was too inside-baseball then, and it's too inside-baseball now.

[hixx]

YES! Okay thank you.

That makes a lot a lot of sense.

Thanks to everyone for steering me through the murky waters.


Hixx

[Chip]

I wish more of the general public would ask questions like this and talk about this sort of thing. It's important to think critically about political issues...and lots of other things.

-Chip

[stetsko]

Another hope of public financing is to remove the pay-to-play aspects of politics. Given the sheer cost of getting elected, people who can contribute the most to a candidate's election weild the most power after that candidate has been elected.

This actually isn't as much of a big deal in national politics, because the biggest donors tend to line up on ideological lines. It's not really a shock that the NRA supports the GOP and the AFL-CIO supports the DNC. And while the NRA might influence McCain's gun control position or the AFL-CIO influence Obama's position on trade, chances are they haven't really shifted too much from where they would have been otherwise.

However, in local politics (hello, Rezko!), it's a BIG problem. It's virtually impossible to convict someone of taking improper campaign contributions, and the favoritism in zoning/TIF districts/government contracts etc. is a real drain on public resources. The fact that developer A gives money to half a dozen aldermen's campaigns and then (coincidence of coincidences!) gets board approval for his controversial development project is decidedly problematic, but virtually unstoppable as long as we allow private financing of elections.

(Others aren't a big fan of private financing, because it disenfranches the poor. Again, in national politics, I don't buy into that as much, but it does have some truth to it.)

K.

[speedymarie]

This actually isn't as much of a big deal in national politics, because the biggest donors tend to line up on ideological lines. It's not really a shock that the NRA supports the GOP and the AFL-CIO supports the DNC. And while the NRA might influence McCain's gun control position or the AFL-CIO influence Obama's position on trade, chances are they haven't really shifted too much from where they would have been otherwise.


There's a book I've seen where it shows where big corporations make political donations (the dollar amount donation to Repubs, and to Dems). Virtually every corporation donates to both parties.

The purpose of the book is so you can "vote with your dollars" and support corporations that donate to your party of choice (or boycott ones that support your party of not-choice).

However, since most corporations donate to both, it's kind of moot - these corporations (and their lobbyists) are hedging their bets. But what's weird is that for virtually all these companies (and I looked at many pages in the book), they donate more to Repubs than to Democrats, by about 20-25%, I think. I assume Dems are cheaper than Republicans. Or maybe they get more of what they want from the Repubs, so it's a better investment.