Opinion
Public financing by way of semantics
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Ryan Masse:
- Count down to Keith Olbermann's irrelevant exit (November 12, 2008)
- Health plan losing steam (October 29, 2008)
- ACORN unintentionally fraudulent (October 16, 2008)
- Biden versus Palin: debate to watch (October 2, 2008)
- Anti-Palin talk emboldens GOP (September 18, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama promises a new brand of politics, free of the cynicism that has pervaded the field for generations.
Yet over the last month, Mr. Obama has given every indication he’s prepared to renege on one of the earliest, simplest and most unequivocal pledges of his campaign: a March 2007 pact with John McCain in which both men agreed to accept public financing for the 2008 general election, assuming each won his respective party’s nomination.
The deal with Mr. McCain was verbal but well-documented. Mr. Obama reiterated it in writing in a September 2007 questionnaire with the Midwest Democracy Network, stating, “I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
When he made those statements, public financing made decent sense for Mr. Obama, the promising but still-green senator from Illinois. Now that he’s a fundraising juggernaut, it makes little sense, because when left up to private donors, Mr. Obama has demonstrated a fundraising proclivity far surpassing that of Mr. McCain. By accepting public financing for the general election, the field would be evened, with both candidates taking $84 million in free money from the government but also agreeing not to raise or spend private funds.
So Mr. Obama has had an apparent change of heart on accepting public financing, which would be fine, were it not for his original pledge to do otherwise. He has insisted no final decision has been made (he does still need to win the nomination, granted), but when pressed on the issue — most recently in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article earlier this week quoting Obama strategist David Axelrod — his campaign has refused to reaffirm its earlier promise.
Meanwhile, little scrutiny has been paid to Mr. Obama’s rationale for his public financing retreat. Sure, he wants out because it would be to his financial advantage, but that’s not how he’s framing it. Speaking at a fundraiser earlier this month in Washington, D.C., the Illinois senator said “We have 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, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.”
It’s a lengthy quote, so allow me to state it succinctly: Mr. Obama has created a “parallel” public financing scheme which… isn’t public financing at all! It’s simply private parties giving him money, only they do so — wait for it — electronically.
How this parallel system accomplishes any of the stated goals of public election financing is unclear. Certain content on the Internet can be weeded out — spam, pop-up ads, etc. — but if there’s an online filter that strips the supposed corrupting influence of money from campaign donations, I haven’t seen it.
Mr. Obama defends his system as different because his donors are just regular people. There’s a little truth to this, because 40 percent of his donors have given him less than $200 a piece, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
But this isn’t a revolutionary figure. In 2004, 31 percent of John Kerry’s primary contributors came from the $200-or-less set, while 32 percent of George W. Bush’s donors fit in this group (both accepted public funds in the general election). Mr. Obama’s percentage is a bit higher, but it’s more than a little ridiculous to suggest that somewhere between 32 and 40 a magic threshold is reached, turning private donations into “public” financing. And Mr. Obama’s 40 percent pales in comparison to the 61 percent that Howard Dean achieved in his ill-fated 2004 primary run.
John McCain counts 24 percent of his donors as being from the $200-or-less club. Meanwhile, though the Arizona senator garners a greater percentage of his donations in big-money chunks, in actual numbers, Mr. McCain has fewer than half as many donations from people giving $2,300 (the maximum individual contribution per candidate per election) as does Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama has far outpaced Mr. McCain in contributions from individuals associated with the pharmaceutical industry, health service providers and commercial banks. Goldman Sachs alone has given him more than $500,000, compared to only slightly more than $100,000 to Mr. McCain. Hedge funds (and what says “little guy” better than them?) have donated nearly $1.5 million to Mr. Obama. Even Big Tobacco has given slightly more to Mr. Obama thus far than to Mr. McCain.
In sum, Mr. Obama’s “parallel public financing system” takes contributions from regular people, but it reserves plenty of space for big-money spenders looking to give.
Of course, Mr. McCain is not immune to legitimate criticism in the public financing realm either. Though he remains committed to his agreement to accept public funds during the general election, Mr. McCain has been looking to get out from his original decision to also accept public funds for the primary season. It’s an ironic reversal for a man who has spent so much energy in the last decade telling us how money is ruining politics.
But at least Mr. McCain isn’t reneging on any promise he made to another candidate, and he hasn’t campaigned on an overarching theme of diametrically changing the tenor of Washington politics as we know it. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has.
Back in 2007, Mr. Obama wrote in an FEC filing that if both presidential candidates accepted public funding in the general election, it “would preserve the public financing system, now in danger of collapse, and facilitate the conduct of campaigns freed from any dependence on private fund-raising.”
But hey, those were — as Mr. Obama is apt to say — “just words.” Cynicism be gone, indeed.
Ryan Masse (rmasse@badgerherald.com) is a first-year law student.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Obama is a ward heeler from Chicago. Just what do you expect?
WOW, Obama changed his mind! How dare he?
Thanks, Masse, you have shown me that Obama can adapt to current situations and find success without blind ideology.
That makes you angry, because it’s different than the stubborn mess of the past 8 years.
“But at least Mr. McCain isn’t reneging on any promise he made to another candidate”
No, but as you stated in the sentence prior to this, he’s just reneging on a binding agreement he signed to use public funds during the primary.
Stop contradicting yourself.
Of course, Obama-backers will disregard this blatant contravention of espoused principles and paint it in a positive light, like 11:20. Disgusting.
P.S. Is this the first time you’ve ever taken the correct position on an issue? It just might be.
“Thanks, Masse, you have shown me that Obama can adapt to current situations and find success without blind ideology.”
He can when it involves sucking up money for his own benefit. Politics as usual.
Move along, nothing new to see here.
President Obama was eating his morning waffles. “I sure love waffles,” he said to no one in particular.
His aide rushed into the room. “Sir, Iran has—”
“Why can’t I just eat my waffle?” Obama asked angrily.
“Sir, there is a crisis and—”
“Can you not see the waffle I am eating? You will wait until my waffle is gone to talk to me! I’m the president!”
“Yes, sir.”
Obama took another bite. “I sure love waffles. I guess its the shape I like best. The waffle shape.”
“Maybe you should just eat your waffles instead of talking about them so we can get to business,” the aide suggested.
“Don’t tell me how to eat my waffles!” Obama screamed. “I’m the president!” He then muttered to himself, “Dumb cracker.” He looked back to the waffles. “Mmm… waffles!”
Where do you get your information, Fox News? This article is dribble. Is America supposed to be outraged that Obama is not a fool. How about leaving the public funding in trust for someone who may need it later. McCain has allready violated FEC rules and possibly commited fraud by using public funding as security for a loan. Don’t play on the ingornance and fears of uninformed voters. Where are the real journalists in America?