Hello! The Moderate Voice Discussion Forum is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- themoderatevoice.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I sure don't want to flare up a theological discussion here, i know that rarely goes anywhere positive. . .but would like to state i have found a way to reconcile God's omnipotence with all...
- gazzaboy, I don't know what gazza stands for, but by your comments and your spelling, I think boy is appropriate. Your comments are equivalent to that of a 9-year old, but you could be 10. If...
- AustinRoth, you just said what we are saying, read your words: And I don't believe OJ is innocent; that the LAPD was innocent of beating Rodney King; that Robert Blake was innocent; that...
- "not many parents would want their kids hanging out unsupervised with a guy who had been taken to court on child molestation charges." I think it depends on how informed the parents are....
- A refreshing gust of honesty from the Christian right. (At least purportedly from the Christian right; it's so bald it's hard to believe.) There really is no other way to reconcile...
Jump to original thread »
Obama Will Opt Out Of Public Campaign Financing For Election
Started by themoderatevoice · 1 year ago
Declaring that the public campaign financing system is broken, Democratic presumptive Presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has made the announcement expected for a long time that he would opt out of the public financing system and raise all the money on his own.
He made the announcement in a web video to his supporters, effectively saying […] ... Continue reading »
He made the announcement in a web video to his supporters, effectively saying […] ... Continue reading »
1 year ago
If Obama declines to feed at the public trough for his campaign, why is that NOT a good thing, as long as special interests are NOT funding his campaign?
And has that NOT being the case, since a VAST majority of his campaign money comes from little folks donating a few dollars at a time on the internet?
It sounds to me like John McCain, and others who are taking Obama to task for refusing to limit himself to public money are DEATHLY AFRAID of what his fundraising PROWESS will do to them in the campaign money chase.
Give me a break, already!
1 year ago
Having said that I have a couple other thoughts...
For McCain, this situation is "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." Meaning (for heads) if Obama did opt in, then McCain would win because Obama would have less money to spend and McCain and the Reps. have all those 527s. For tails... if Obama opts out of public financing, then McCain can paint Obama as a flip flopper (though McCain should really speak.....).
I think the spirit of campaign finance is to take away special interest money/power. So I think what Obama has done is put the power into the hands of the people.
I'd like to remind everyone that just after Obama "officially" became the presumptive nominee after the last contest, one if the first things he did was, prohibit the Democratic National Committee from accepting money from federal lobbyists or political action committees.
I mean isn't this what we want? Isn't accepting money only from individuals true public finance?
I never thought I'd see the day that the GOP, the party of "big money" and wealthy donors, was actually hurting for donations. George Bush really does have a legacy!
1 year ago
1 year ago
Let's see... *mulls over checklist*
1. Big/Media/GOP/Big Oil handled Obama with kid gloves during the primaries even though is past is riddled with holes like swiss cheese. Weird, but OK. Check.
2. Most of Obama's "online support" comes from less established people under 30 years old...Weird, but OK. Check.
3. Now he has so much money that he doesn' t need the kick from Uncle Sam. Wow, those 20-somethings sure are doing well in our lousy economy...
Hmmm....
Maybe we should audit Obama's campaign contributions, now? I'm thinking there's something fishy about them. It's fair. After all he audited every single signature of all four minority progressive candidates that ran against him in the Chicago election http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-07... in order to systematically eliminate them from competition to run unopposed...
I'd like to see where all those Jane and John Does live, their home addresses, occupations and the like. Let's see if they match reality.
1 year ago
As for him for going the public financing I say:
Heck, if I was getting 20 to 60 million a month from my small donors I'd forego the public financing as well and take the hit in McCain having a hissy fit over it.
obama would be foolish to fore go the money.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
What Obama promised to do was sit down and try to negotiate an agreement with McCain on public financing.
He was especially concerned about organizations like the Swift-Boaters.
It doesn't surprise me that the Obama haters are willing to jump on this and twist it to serve their own ends.
1 year ago
Concerning the candidates Obama knocked out of the race against him: Why assume the other candidates were legitimate candidates for that office? Maybe those candidates deliberately padded their petitions with fake voters. Maybe not. It doesn't matter. The law says the signatures have to be legitimate and signed by real, living voters in the district, state, county or city for which they are petitioning to be on the ballot. You marginalize the law and rationalize cheating when you characterize abiding with election law as "crossing Ts and dotting Is." And when you call being a stickler for following the rules as "nefarious, underhanded, slimey (sic) old-school tactics", you attempt make the law breakers the heroes.
Election officials are charged with scrutinizing these petitions and making sure the signatures are legitimate. This is NOT trivial. It's based on laws passed by Congress, signed by the president and upheld by the courts. It protects our democratic process. You are justifying cheating, especially by "progressive minority candidates." It is NOT OK to cheat in the electoral process. It is NOT fascism to insist that the process be legitimate. I don't see how you can rationalize gaming the system while criticizing Obama for using the system legitimately.
1 year ago
1 year ago
If there is evidence to the contrary, those making the claim that he has fliip-flopped had better produce it. I'm willing to be educated but not fooled.
1 year ago
Yeah, its that easy.
1 year ago
And, can anyone say with a straight face that the campaign finance laws do what they are 'supposed' to do - level the playing field (why? who says life or politics is fair?), and reduce corruption and influence peddling (excuse me while I snort my drink out my nose).
1 year ago
Here you go, Runasim.
Here is Obama's clearest statement on this issue. His wording is careful, as ChrisWWW says. George Sorwell, in Obama's response there is nothing about sitting down and negotiating and we will see what happens...whatever...loosey-goosey. Obama replied: Yes.
He says "Yes" in response to the question that "if" his opponents forego private funding will Obama. As McCain as indicated he will, Obama is clearly going back on his word.
I know Obama supporters here are deperately parsing and clinging at straws...doubtless channeling the spirit of Bill Clinton (but that all depend on what the meaning of "if"is), but seriously.
Of course, Obama would have been stupid not to take advantage of his increased fundraising. But be honest. . . he is going back on his word.
"In Response To A 2007 Questionnaire, Obama Said He Would Accept Public Funding In General Election. Question: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" Obama: "Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Presidential Candidate Questionnaire," Midwest Democracy Network, www.commoncause.org, 11/27/07) "
1 year ago
Obama said:
"Yes." Yes, full stop. Yes, he will. Yes.
(Apologies to James Joyce re: the recent celebration of Bloomsday :)
1 year ago
Campaign finance laws were never designed to "level the playing field." If a candidate is more popular than another, he or she logically would and should have more resources availabe for campaigning. That's democracy.
1 year ago
Edit: A TMV article about McCain's change-of-heart on public financing during the Primary season. What's to make us think that McCain would stick to his word this time? That is assuming he even agreed public financing for the general election in the first place. Did he?
http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blo...
1 year ago
At the same time, I find myself thinking, "well, he should follow through on the promise of public financing, and then maybe there is someway to channel money to the DNC and other groups where the Republicans have a financial advantage, and then...." But then I stop and think, "isn't this making his financing and campaign less transparent?" It' moving money around to technically keep the promise, but not really since all the money will just flow to less transparent groups. From that perspective, it's ultimately better to have the majority of money going from supporters directly to a campaign in a documented, clear way. No sidetracking it.
So I don't know. In the end, public fincancing only seems valid if it's the primary source of campaign funding, which in the current system, it's not.
1 year ago
Consider ChrisWWW's view: "If a candidate is more popular than another, he or she logically would and should have more resources availabe for campaigning."
But that only applies when there are lots of small donors submitting donations. The issue Obama himself was addressing in his FIRST take on campaign financing is a real one. In Obama's words: official public financing is "a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests."
This is a sticky wicket for Democrats, as big GOP donors have outgunned them massively in the past. Hence, so many Dems have been behind finance reform. However, when big Dem. fundraisers like Bill Clinton can pull in staggering sums (some of it murky, as many of you here at TMV have admitted, for his library and such) you are in the position of being taken by Satan up on the mountain and shown the kingdoms of the world . . . which can be yours . . . for a price.
Obama is willing to pay that price. But his decision will effectively toast any bipartisan move towards finance reform for the foreseeable future.
And Democrats should bear in mind, Obama is a magical anomaly in his fundraising ability.
You will not have Obama in a few years, and the GOP machine will have recovered from the Bush debacle and will be raising money from the Evangelicals like a house on fire enraged by gay marriage or whatever.
1 year ago
Come on. Speaking of selective reading:.
"If campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests."" (an Obama written quote from your comment.)
Please note the word IF, Every time Obama spoke on the subject, there were always IF's and negotations involved. Yours is the video clip appraoch, with no CONTEXT. .
The reelity is that it's impossible to make a full policy statement and explanation in response to short questions.
However, you can't deny that the main theme has always been to break the hold of special interests and lobbyistis .That's the appropriate context, something Obama's detractors seem to abhor.
In that, he has succeedd to a remarkable degree. (not a perfect degree, i hasten to add).
In the meantime, McCain has done everything possible to game the system and to give Obama reason to NOT trust him. The quirky joining of his campaign funds to state and national Republican funds is but one example.Sounds like lessons from DeLay to me.
Have the rules for BOTH candidates to accept public funds been put in place? No, because McCain would never play by Obama's, much more stringent, rules.
The reference to media ads explains the important reason for the IF in the quote.
There needs be a method for curtailing 527 actvoties via ads, and under current law, there is not. The influence candidates could have on that would need to depend on an honor system. What honor system would work for both?
Would you trust McCain? How's he doing on the 'honest debate' part of the campaign? He's pivoting so fast, at times he seems to be arguing with himself.
1 year ago
Senator Obama has said many times, "Lobbyist will not run my White House."
Getting rid of the extremely negative impact of lobbyist is one of the major reasons I support Senator Obama.
McCain has flip-flopped on many things. Yesterday he told the citizens of Missouri about a gas tax holiday he knows Congress will never approve.
Prior to McCain's event in Missouri yesterday, Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said in a conference call that McCain's plan would cost the state 6,000 jobs and $167 million in federal gas tax dollars for Missouri's roadways.
"The people of Missouri can smell a phony deal a mile away," she said. "Frankly, that’s what John McCain’s gas tax is. He knew it wasn’t going to have any meaningful impact on people’s real pain – our dependence on foreign oil."
McCaskill said it was "a promise he knew he would never have to deliver on."
The "Could McCain Have Come Up with a More Ill-Suited Economic Advisor Than Phil Gramm?" is one of many examples for the damage caused by lobbyist specifically gas prices and the subprime housing damage.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/87999/?cID=9...
1 year ago
This is another area of faux analysis.
Big donors are defined as those who donate over $200 up to $2300.
Those 'big donors' are often nobodies,who can afford to donate $20 or $30 at a time, as I just heard on the radio. These are not fat cats expecting favors.
When you hear or read 'big donor', don't jump to conclusions. about quid-pro-quo corruption.
Obama has already brought change, if people would only notice..
McCain says things. Obama does things.
1 year ago
Runasim, Obama's above quoted answer to the question if his opponents forego private funding would he, Obama answers without an "if" or a qualifier. He says:
"Yes."
There is a full stop there.
Obama is doing this because he has a huge fundraising advantage over McCain. I know you really want to believe in his purity of purpose . . . but he is pursuing his political advantage . . . much as any politician would.
I doubt the 527s can be curtailed under the Constitution.
Most rational observers - even in the MSM - concede Sen Obama is going back on his pledge here.
It is a complicated issue, but his response was unequivoal:
"Yes."
I am reminded of another presidential candidate who made another such unequivocal response: "Read my lips. No . . . new . . . taxes."
Runasim, should Bush pere be excused from his going back on his pledge on such a complicated issue as national taxation? The American people did not think so.
Were I McCain, I would hammer St. Obama on this . . . again and again. If Obama wants to take his funding advantage, he must pay the price for going back on his word.
1 year ago
Big donors are defined as those who donate over $200 up to $2300."
Actually, no. Big donors can channel money through lots of small donors. These are corporate leaders and lobbyists who make evading financing laws a daily business.
Recall that Asian chap who donated staggering amounts to HRC, in the names of some people who were lifetime GOP supporters. HRC ended up returning those donations to charity, and the chap is up on charges at the moment.
This is what Obama was speaking of when he warned of moneyed interests. He has gotten a lot of money from small supporters . . . but now increasingly from K Street lobbyists.
1 year ago
Regardless, this might be an error on Obama's part for the long term, as even Feingold has said. If you real think that public financing is better for elections in general, then you've hurt your long-term cause by making an exception for yourself.
I actually remain concerned about the amount of money being raised whether it is from small donors, given voluntarily or not. One could take the 300 million or so between Obama and McCain and build 20 to 30 schools in Chicago or Phoenix. And yet here it's all going to buy TV ads and pay consultants.
Of course, it's still less than the box office receipts for Iron Man.
1 year ago
A.
"Actually, no. Big donors can channel money through lots of small donors. These are corporate leaders and lobbyists who make evading financing laws a daily business. "
Yes, they can, but to what degree are they doing that?
Another commenter here went on for several days about foreighners being able to donate through PayPal (even though PayPal payments are not anonymous)..
Some could funnel money to any campaign by delivering cash to an intermediary.
Anything can happen. There are no fool proof rules.
However, in order to make a valid accusation, the accuser is obligated to provide proof that a possibilliy is an acuality, at least to some degree.
It's possible that Marlowecan is actually a female jihadist. Should it up to you to prove me wrong?
----
B.
Re: yes. Full stop.
Again, Even 'yes' has context.
Do I support public transport? Yes. Full stop.
Do I think it's financially feasable in rural areas? No.
If conditions change to make public transport affordabe everywehere, would I support it? Yes. Full stop.
----------------
You talk about hammering and such. The methods of politics is exactly what I hate most.
We'd be a lot better off if we discussed policies in detal rather than hammering with isolated excerpts. It's misleading and leads to very bad policies
1 year ago
(Where's all that money coming from? Soros? K Street? Traditional Dem dinosaur interest groups looking to a return of their influence and the truly failed policies of the past, in the name of "change"? This campaign is getting more and more interesting.)
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
So.
A politician who cut his political teeth in the wards of the bare knuckle Chicago Democratic political machine, turns out to be just another politician who will say whatever he needs to say to get votes and do whatever is politically expedient to get elected.
Huh.
Who would’ve thunk it?
1 year ago
Yes, lobby. It is not sanctified as "authentic democracy of massive grassroots" by being online. It is not cleansed merely by being smaller contributions by many. It's a lobby, pure and simple -- nothing new. Let's not get overly giddy about it.
And some very big questions are raised when this lobby doesn't have to fall under the scrutiny that it would if under public financing.
How will the public even be able to scrutinize how all these Facebooked and Twittered millions are used in attack ads? They *do* go to Youtubing ads and the massive distribution of memes on all the email lists, blogs, news groups, etc. So how can you monitor something like that? That's what they're counting on -- under the guise of "democracy" in fact becoming less transparent because they are dispersed.
Lobbyists don't cease become lobbyists just because they are 20-something, have i-Phones, and donate $2000 instead of $200,000, bundled on a blog or Second Life island instead of in a Manhattan penthouse. Netroots are not grassroots.
1 year ago
http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/36648.html