Obama and public funds

Okay, so I'm pretty surprised nobody has taken this up yet. Obama early on said that he would take the public funds for the presidential race, but now he is opting out of it. In one sense, there is a good reason - he will be able to outspend McCain by the incredible financial support he is getting from the population. That will definitely help him in the race. But I'm left feeling like this is Mark Souder all over again with term limits - it's a good idea when "preaching" to the people, but once you see a chance to further your political career by ditching it, it's gone.

This isn't a huge scandal or anything; and frankly, it'd be strategically foolish not to forgo the public funds. But maybe that's what I'm looking for in a change candidate. Something that seems less like strategy and something that shows more of an actual desire to change politics. I wonder how many people go out to change politics for the people - and instead are changed by politics instead.

The campaign response to this issue is that for him to take the public funding would disinfranchise all of his grassroots supporters. If we want the big dollar PACs and Lobbyists out of the White House we need a campaign that only accepts predominantly (97%) donations of $100 or less from the common ordinary person. Obama is giving America a chance to participate in this campaign, if we want change we have our chance, in November we will see how hungry America is for something different or if we want to stay the course economically and foreign policy wise.

Bman... that's the second time you've cited that stat and it simply isn't true. According to FEC filings he has taken in about 47% of his funds from donors of less than $200.

The addition problem is that the donors are Obama specific and (so far) those same people are not making second donations to the party which hurts the party overall... all the other state and local races that don't come close to the republican party war chest. Also, limits have predominately been a democrat issue because they wanted to keep conservative big money out of the presidential race. Don't think for a minute that after this celing is broken that republicans won't follow suit and once again out raise democrats. It might be a moot point as corporate financing to democrats is now even or has exceeded corporate money to republicans.

A little bit of positive spin, don't you think Bman? I can't imagine anyone would have truly been disenfranchised if he would have taken the public fund, which by the way, isn't given out for favors by PACs or lobbyists. I am highly skeptical it's anything but the huge dollars that await him by opting out. I am all for a smarter foreign policy, bringing back some respect to this country, etc.; but it's just a bit sad that he feels the need to sell out in order to accomplish this, don't you think?

But yeah, I'm a political cynic on all fronts.

If I recall weren't the dem's trying to get either Guiliani or McCain disqualified because one of them did the same thing in the primaries? I know they were doing it against one of the republicans... guess they forgot about that.

Hey, why are we questioning anything BHO does? He's change we can believe in.

cardinal5150 wrote:If I recall weren't the dem's trying to get either Guiliani or McCain disqualified because one of them did the same thing in the primaries? I know they were doing it against one of the republicans... guess they forgot about that.

I believe it's McCain and now that the vacant seats on the FEC are being filled we'll know the outcome soon enough. The first question is was his request to back out of the federal funding allowed since the FEC lacked a quorum to vote on his request. Backing out is allowed provided that no federal funds had been received or promised as collateral. That raises the second issue; did McCain promise Bethesda Bank that he would apply for federal funding if it looked like he would not prevail in the primary? The second question is certainly a grey area at this point in light of the fact that his advisor was a frormer chairman of the FEC and advised in a way that probably met the technical aspects of the law but probably not the spirit of the law. Considering that McCain helped draft the legislation and was advised by a former FEC chairman, I think he's probably legally ok but morally/ethical suspect. However, given the unprecedented money this election has seen it is understandable that he needed to change course lest he become Bob Dole II.

Vis.. so does that mean Obama backed out before the FEC ruled as well? If I'm following you that seems to be the key.

I don't believe he ever opted in. There is no way he would have ever been competitive in the primary if he had as I believe you'd be limited to around $54 million in primary spending (about 20-25% of what he spent). Despite the image being projected; Obama had developed a pretty extensive donor network back in 04 of all the usual suspects (bundlers etc...) and there was no way he was going to tie his hands against the Clinton money machine. It gets muddy for sure but the primary and general are two distinct issues. Obama never vowed to use public funding in the primary but he did state he would do so in the general if the Republican nominee would. McCain who fought for election/funding reform was initially going to use the public funding system in the primary but quickly realized there was no way to compete against his fellow candidates who were/are far wealthier. The overriding principle of the public funding system was to limit the influence of big money in our federal elections and instill faith in the system that democracy was being served if the candidates were on equal financial footing. Of course there were immediate unintended consequences (527's etc.) and the Court's ruling that money=free speech which makes it difficult if not impossible to put the average citizen on equal footing with big money. IMHO

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1739

Clip from that link:

"Obama, when you look at the number of donors he has, and he claims almost 1.5 million donors, the vast majority, 90 percent or more, maybe 98 percent, have given him small amounts, maybe less than $200. By our measure, though, when you look at the amount of money that those small donors account for, it's still the minority of the money. Forty-five percent of his money comes from donors who have given less than $200, 55 percent comes from people who have given more than $200, and 30 percent comes from those who have given $2,300 or more -- $2,300 being the maximum contribution you can give for the primary. So he's still fueled in large part by bigger donations. But if you look at his donor base, it is far more vast than any candidate has ever amassed. His bigger donations early on helped him get the larger number of smaller donations later."

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that "Warren Buffett headlines a $28,500-per-person event July 2 in Chicago for Obama at the home of Obama finance chair Penny Pritzker," who has been credited by many for helping Obama break fundraising records.

So my 97% number was number of donors not total dollars ... my bad. Still John McCain can't compete with this especially if we keep getting news like today. OIL hits $140/barrel and the stock market PLUNGES 360 pts, largest decline since 2006.
None of this is good news for McCain or the McCain sympathizers.

hmm my 47% was only 2% off of that report.

I am surprised that Warren Buffet is raising money for Obama and the DNC. He must want change too, change Warren Buffet can believe in.

Bman wrote:
So my 97% number was number of donors not total dollars ... my bad. Still John McCain can't compete with this especially if we keep getting news like today. OIL hits $140/barrel and the stock market PLUNGES 360 pts, largest decline since 2006.
None of this is good news for McCain or the McCain sympathizers.

Really? Higher prices is bad news for the guy who wants to cut government spending and lower taxes but it's good news for the guy who wants to increase gov't spending and raise taxes on business owners?

You must have taken a different economics class than myself (and just about every other financial person on earth).

Bman wrote:I am surprised that Warren Buffet is raising money for Obama and the DNC. He must want change too, change Warren Buffet can believe in.

Go see LTRT (I think) posts on Warren's views about Obama.. he's supporting him politically but disagrees with a couple of his key financial points.

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:
So my 97% number was number of donors not total dollars ... my bad. Still John McCain can't compete with this especially if we keep getting news like today. OIL hits $140/barrel and the stock market PLUNGES 360 pts, largest decline since 2006.
None of this is good news for McCain or the McCain sympathizers.

Really? Higher prices is bad news for the guy who wants to cut government spending and lower taxes but it's good news for the guy who wants to increase gov't spending and raise taxes on business owners?

You must have taken a different economics class than myself (and just about every other financial person on earth).

If you subscribe to trickle-the-fuck-down economics maybe McCain can make a case. By and large the American public is going to say this economy is shitty, really shitty and this war sucks ... lets make a change. The candidate that can best lay claim to the change title is going to win this November.

Card ... bend over dude, your taxes are going UP.

Bman wrote:Card ... bend over dude, your taxes are going UP.

Bman, you scare the chit out of me. You're Obama's worst nightmare... and over enthusiastic squawk box of slogans and a delusional fanatic. Wake up! Nobody wants change for the sake of change! Represent your candidate as best you can, if this is your "A" game, I'm starting to think the McCain camp should be paying you.

meta4 wrote:

Bman wrote:Card ... bend over dude, your taxes are going UP.

Bman, you scare the chit out of me. You're Obama's worst nightmare... and over enthusiastic squawk box of slogans and a delusional fanatic. Wake up! Nobody wants change for the sake of change! Represent your candidate as best you can, if this is your "A" game, I'm starting to think the McCain camp should be paying you.

Does this deserve a "Bman's shit is weak" ???

Bman wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:
So my 97% number was number of donors not total dollars ... my bad. Still John McCain can't compete with this especially if we keep getting news like today. OIL hits $140/barrel and the stock market PLUNGES 360 pts, largest decline since 2006.
None of this is good news for McCain or the McCain sympathizers.

Really? Higher prices is bad news for the guy who wants to cut government spending and lower taxes but it's good news for the guy who wants to increase gov't spending and raise taxes on business owners?

You must have taken a different economics class than myself (and just about every other financial person on earth).

If you subscribe to trickle-the-fuck-down economics maybe McCain can make a case. By and large the American public is going to say this economy is shitty, really shitty and this war sucks ... lets make a change. The candidate that can best lay claim to the change title is going to win this November.

Card ... bend over dude, your taxes are going UP.

And the democrat controlled congress (who has a lower approval rating than Bush) wouldn't have anything to do with the economy.. after all.. you believe it's all the President.. which is why you're supporting the candidate who is bringing back the economic policies of Herbert Hoover...

My taxes won't go up.. I'm a "working" middle class family.. according to Obama I'm going to get thousands and thousands of dollars in government money because of him. You're the one who's going to get their head in the fence out there in Brigadoon. Single male making millions... you're f'd.

meta4 wrote:

Bman wrote:Card ... bend over dude, your taxes are going UP.

Bman, you scare the chit out of me. You're Obama's worst nightmare... and over enthusiastic squawk box of slogans and a delusional fanatic. Wake up! Nobody wants change for the sake of change! Represent your candidate as best you can, if this is your "A" game, I'm starting to think the McCain camp should be paying you.

lol.. ok.. this really made me laugh

IrishGuy wrote:

meta4 wrote:

Bman wrote:Card ... bend over dude, your taxes are going UP.

Bman, you scare the chit out of me. You're Obama's worst nightmare... and over enthusiastic squawk box of slogans and a delusional fanatic. Wake up! Nobody wants change for the sake of change! Represent your candidate as best you can, if this is your "A" game, I'm starting to think the McCain camp should be paying you.

Does this deserve a "Bman's shit is weak" ???

Naw, that wouldn't do it justice. Maybe he just needs a cup of coffee before posting in the AM

Bman, I hope that I didn't get too offensive. You have good posts and I exaggerate my chastisements often. Consider the source

IrishGuy wrote:Does this deserve a "Bman's shit is weak" ???

No way, that's reserved for the "pro-Iraq-war-blight-of-the-GOP-conservatives-who's-shit-REALLY-IS-weak" because THAT group thinks problems automagically solve themselves and no change is EVER necessary.

meta4 wrote:automagically

Never heard that term before, but I love it!

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

meta4 wrote:automagically

Never heard that term before, but I love it!

It's a geek thing... you wouldn't understand

Oh-oh. Obama might have just lost FloridaFun's vote.

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith

Markwes wrote:Oh-oh. Obama might have just lost FloridaFun's vote.

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith

Ya know, I actually don't have a problem with this general idea. The key being that the government encourage the religious organizations to present their program to the public and not try to cater to a few of their "lost sheep". The purpose of the program should be to focus on the public welfare and charity as a service, and a benefit to the community, that parallels government programs.