Death, taxes and now… campaign contributions
Very Bad
From the NY Times op/ed section:
Campaigns generate headlines with the tough decisions they make. On Thursday, Barack Obama’s campaign made waves with an easy one. Mr. Obama’s decision to leave the public financing system elicited the predictable outrage among reformers (and the McCain camp), but it was probably the most obvious and inevitable decision he’ll make all year — justified both politically and ethically.
By freeing his campaign from the public system, Mr. Obama can continue to raise donations from his vast base of supporters, who have made his campaign thus far the best-financed in history. Mr. Obama is rightly counting on them to raise far more than the $84 million in public funds he could expect to receive from public financing.
Mr. Obama may be on slippery ground because of his previous commitment to stick with the public system. But given that his campaign essentially embodies the ideals of reform — to a degree no one seriously thought possible just a few years ago — it’s going to be difficult for the McCain campaign or the chorus of scolds to generate much traction on the issue. After all, Mr. Obama’s all but certain financial advantage in the campaign will be derived from donors of modest means — not wealthy vested interests.
Obama left the publicly funding election system for a system funded by the public. There are two chief complaints; that he said he would work with the Republican nominee to have a fairly funded fight and now he’s breaking his word, and that this sets a dangerous precedent. Obama has disingenuously claimed his reason for leaving is to level the playing field since history the Republican camp have used “527 groups” — third-party political groups that aren’t allowed to coordinate their efforts with the campaign, but are freed from all other financial limits. (The most famous being the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that ran a smear campaign against John Kerry in 2004 campaign.) The reality is that the Republicans haven’t really deployed any 527s this cycle, though they may, and the better and more honest reason would simply be that Obama would be foolish to turn down the likely hundreds of millions of dollars from small donors he’s likely to get.
In an ironic twist, John McCain who has been loudly complaining about Obama’s lack of ethics is actually violating federal election law during this primary season. He opted into the public system to guarantee a loan, then backed out of the public system without permission which is illegal. The Federal Election Commission is currently without enough members to vote on the matter, but the chairman (a Republican) has denounced McCain’s action and improper already.
So what does this all mean? Obama will campaign hard in more states than any other candidate ever has, and will campaign in every state in the union, which no one has ever done. He’ll do so in the faint shadow of his questionable reasoning, while McCain will continue to spend until the Republican National Convention money he is legally barred from spending. After the RNC, he’ll be limited to the $84m and whatever the independent 527s want to invest on their own advertising.
This also means that somewhere between $200m-$400m will be spent on the campaigning for this election, on top of the countless millions already spent. Ad into that what the various networks have spent on their staff, ad revenue, etc and we have an election cost escalating far beyond more countries’ GDP. The race of the president of the United States is certainly important, but that seems an obscene amount of money in light of the cheap costs dent poverty, disease or illiteracy around the world.
Image courtesy Jay D on Flickr.
Tags: election, FEC, McCain, obama, public financing
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I agree that it’s dangerous for Obama to back out on his word on this and make a decision that is clearly in his best interest. I guess in one way, raising money directly from people is much better than taking public funds. In another, his position-changing seems disingenuous.
This combined with his announcement on the FISA bill has really shaken my trust in the guy. You really want to believe he is all he says he is, but these two things in one week make me doubt.
On one hand there’s adjusting tactics to a situation. Which many are afraid to do because of political backlash. On the other there’s making the opportunist decision. Not sure which is happening here.
If he’s trying to become a catalyst for a “new type of politics”, i’m not confident this is the way to do it.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I’m reserving judgement on the FISA bill until it comes to vote. He pledged to filibuster it last year, and the White House has committed to veto anything without amnesty, so stripping amnesty would almost certainly lead to a veto and still give Obama a boost with the pro-security independents.
Perhaps that’s not what he’s actually doing, and there’s a bigger policy shift here, but I think this is a play for pro-security undecided voters. We’ll see if it works.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
It’s disappointing that he’s gone back on his word, but I’ve been steeling myself for disappointment for a while. I think we’re watching the slow but sure effect of politics changing a person more than the other way around. That said, the nature of American politics is that any real change is incremental, except in extraordinary circumstances (i.e. war, depression, massive social unrest). I do expect to see him make changes in the system, but I expect them to be gradual, surrounded by the business as usual that gets things done in Washington. I really believe he’s a good man with good ideas, and it does make me sad to see him bow to political necessities, but part of me asks, “How much can we expect from a guy?” Washington has crushed the good intentions of so many people that if he gets to the White House with half his scruples intact, I’ll be thrilled. But it’s a shame that it is that way.