Obama’s Response on Public Finance
As far as I know, Obama has not directly responded to McCain calling for him to “honor his pledge” to accept public financing in the general election. It is true that Obama said that he would as long as the Republican nominee agreed to as well; however, nobody knew then that Obama would be the fundraising machine that he is. Obama has broken all kinds of records and it would be politically foolish for him to accept public financing that would put him on equal financial footing with McCain, who struggles to raise funds. Also, without the lead in funds, Obama would be at a disadvantage during the campaign since McCain is already a much more established political figure.
So he has not given a direct response, but here is the response that I think he should give.
“Senator McCain has been calling for me to accept public financing in the election because he is afraid of the incredible success our campaign has been having. He sees that hundreds of thousands of individuals from all across the country are willing to contribute to this campaign because they believe in change. Well, I will accept public financing in the truest sense – I will continue to allow the public to finance my campaign. I won’t say to the hundreds of thousands of donors that they cannot take part in this campaign. The purpose of public financing is to limit the influence of interest groups and corporations in the election process. I have always upheld that purpose by refusing to accept donations from interest groups and lobbyists, and I will continue to uphold that purpose.”
It is unfortunate that Obama is in the situation of appearing to go back on a promise, but it is really the only sensible thing for him to do. He can’t just admit that he is changing his mind, though; he has to make his decision into a positive thing. This is an issue that can easily be spun because most people don’t understand how the public finance system works anyway, and even if they do, many don’t agree with the premise of giving federal money to candidates instead of letting donors volunteer their contributions.
*Senator Obama, you can feel free to use all or part of this text and I won’t consider it plagiarism.
Here is an editorial that Obama published in USA Today.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html
I think that might answer your query.
By the way, I love the note that you put down at the bottom for all of those who may use the same tactic that was used when he included Deval Patrick’s words in a speech in Wisconsin. Gotta love desparation.
I’m not exactly sure what’s desperate about pointing out mistakes made by your opponent. Many a politician has been barbecued with plagiarism allegations, and I see no reason why the new messiah ought to be any different.
If Obama does not honor his agreement with McCain, which it appears he will not, I will be sorely tempted to stay home from the polls when the Indiana primaries take place (not that they’ll matter anyway, being in May) and I will probably stay home in November. Acceptance of public financing is a matter of principle. The principle here is that the way the United States conducts its political campaigns is a travesty of democracy and needs to be fixed.
I would much rather have the campaigns funded out of the federal budget than have the kind of sleazy financing practices that go on in the status quo. McCain has long been a leader in pushing for campaign finance reform and Obama tried to claim the same kinds of credentials. Obama refusing public financing may be the smart move politically, but it gives me a bad taste in my mouth when I think of the kind of president he’ll be if he refuses.
Obama’s refusal to honor his pledge is an indication that Obama may like to think of himself as a man as principle, but when it comes time to put principle into practice he will take the easy and convenient route. He says that he will talk with Iran and try to work out problems through diplomacy, but when it gets hard to stick to principle and an easy military option presents itself, what is there to indicate he won’t take it?
David M Manes said…
“For what it’s worth” – they did agree, and they both “promised” to accept public financing.
Now I know that the typical politician’s promise may not be worth much, but the promise is out there, nonetheless. Neither candidate will be able to easily spin it away.
February 6, 2008 12:25 AM
And then today:
“It is unfortunate that Obama is in the situation of appearing to go back on a promise, but it is really the only sensible thing for him to do.”
This whole thing disgusts me. Obama is a part of the problem and not the solution and his reluctance here to abide by his promise is a perfect example of that. If we elect McCain, there may be an equitable system for conducting elections, but I feel now that if Obama refuses to honor his word and becomes president, we can look forward to the same kinds of sleazy elections and fund raising that we have now.
Oh, Kyle, you are always so dramatic.
I am curious to hear what kind of “sleazy campaign fundraising” Obama has been a part of. Really, I am all for reforming campaign finance, but I think the public system is kind of silly.
I think that Obama and McCain could get together (like he suggests in his article) and reach some sort of agreement on campaign finance, but it is unlikely that there will be a silver bullet to this issue.
I hate to almost sound like JKK when I say that the political reality of Obama’s fundraising potential outweighs the idea that he might have to adjust a statement that he made early in the primary (Gasp! Buckle your seatbelts because this will happen many more times with any candidate!). All of the money that Obama can fundraise will buy a lot of ads and pamphlets to explain why he is the best candidate.
And yeah, I changed my mind on this, which I occasionally do. I guess some people are so perfect that they never reconsider their absolute positions, but we usually call those people dogmatic, Kyle.
Ha! My infectious, cynical, inside the Beltway bile has infected even the purest of the pure.
David that’s beside the point. The point Kyle is making is that the whole point of the public financing was to set a precedent that future candidates should follow and would be good for everyone. I wish I were a democrat right now so I wouldn’t just sound like someone who wants Obama to lose. I highly respect Kyle for what he has just said because he would be much more inclined to support Obama.
Regardless of whether Obama’s supporters are clean or dirty, the point is he made a promise, and an honorable one at that, and if he wants the be a true leader that I really hope he can be, he needs to honor that promise.
Plus, think of the great things that can come out of this. Both candidates will have less money (this affects McCain too) to launch attacks through commercials. As CJ indicated in a discussion we had, they will be forced to face each other in more debates which has so much more democratic value.
Though there will, of course, be plenty (perhaps even too many) political ads in the general election, that isn’t the only place the money goes. Obama’s fundraising strength allowed him to invest in a deep and powerful field organization (something the Clinton campaign, in their single-minded arrogance, failed to do). That is the genesis of their dominance in the caucus states and the single biggest tactical reason that Barack Obama is all but the presumptive nominee.
You say that debates are of more substantive value, but most of the debates I’ve seen thus far have focused on the personalities and histories of the candidates and not on specific public policy. The hosts of the debates have clearly been more interested in sowing the seeds of a good sound bite that in getting at any real difference. If the candidates would agree to a real debate (one that is not carefully manicured so as to protect the weaknesses of the candidates) you might have a point. But a McCain/Obama race would be defined almost entirely by the contrasts in the candidates’ personalities and styles (they certainly have been to this point). McCain is all about duty, honor, and country. Obama is all hope and change. That sounds like a boring debate to me.
Obama is doing the same thing that everyone else does. That is accepting funding from anyone and everyone with money to spare. They take donations that skirt the fringes of legality and from corporations donating to both sides to hedge their bets.
My statement addressed to you David was mostly to point out that 2 weeks ago, you said that Obama promised to accept public financing. Now you say he is “appearing to back out on a promise.” I have no problem with people changing their mind. It doesn’t bother me that 2 weeks ago you thought he should accept public financing but now he shouldn’t. My problem is that in order to justify this, you now say there was no promise in the first place. Are you as uncomfortable with this as I am but won’t allow yourself to say so because you’ve aligned yourself with Obama so strongly? He’s either breaking his word or he isn’t.
Also, everyone knew two weeks ago what kind of a fundraising machine Obama is. He had already buried every other candidate in fundraising at the time you wrote that post.
Finally, you seem to justify this switch based solely on grounds of convenience. I love your line about “public financing in the truest sense.” Why don’t we just scrap financing restrictions and the FEC altogether then? If money is speech, then why not allow truly free speech? Let the corporations pay for the candidate they want if that’s your position.
If it comes across as though I’m being dogmatic, then so be it. I see a large difference between what a candidate says he will do once in office and what he says he will do on the campaign trail. The latter is a far better judge of the candidate’s character than the former. It’s a cliche that every politician is a liar, but Obama has proved it by trying to weasel his way out of his promise.
Kolby, I think Obama is proving that he doesn’t offer much in the way of change or hope of it.
Kyle: I’ve been saying that for months now. It appears I’ve lost that argument.
It does seem a bit contra-principle to rescind on a “promise” to accept public funding.
I will be the first to say that, yes, public funding would work in favor of McCain, seeing as how Obama has done so well raising funds via grassroots, and from a purely strategic standpoint Obama should not agree to public financing.
Also, from a from personal, trivial viewpoint, I don’t want to directly or indirectly fund the McCain campaign, but that is sort of beside the point of the debate here.
From a principle position, which Obama has stressed as a basic tenet of character, campaign, and potential presidency, it seems as if Kyle may have the leverage. I do acknowledge your point David about political realities and potential benefit analysis; however, isn’t that the basis upon which we have so lambasted Clinton? We have chided her as the cold-hearted calculator, the self-deprecating Clintonian catharsis, the cry-baby, and the proverbial politician. Perhaps we see here that’s its all politics (which I think we’ve subconsciously acknowledge the entire time).
Is this a political reality check? Perhaps. But perhaps not. Is it possible that this is being blown-up into something it’s not. Maybe we’re getting too emotional, dramatic, and personally supercilious.
Politics aren’t all black and white (or male and female, pun intended).
This is an important point to make before anybody else starts giving up quite yet…
Obama has not said anything about not honoring this pledge. Nothing. When asked about it, he says that he will honor it. He evidently wrote an op-ed (cited by CJ) that says that he wants to meet with McCain and discuss exactly that. Nowhere did I suggest that Obama is on the verge of rejecting public funding.
My point is that I think he should reject it, not that he already is planning on it.
But seriously, when he first said that he would take public financing in the general election, it was months and months ago, and circumstances do change. As far as I know, every single politician has had to modify their campaign promises at least somewhat to suit the political reality.
About “public financing in the truest sense:”
What do you think the purpose behind campaign finance reform is? Is the point merely to limit the total number of dollars spent? I don’t think so. I think the point is to limit the influence that interest groups and lobbyists have in the political process because those organizations can be very undemocratic. Obama has recieved unprecedented amounts of money from unprecedented numbers of individual donors, and I do think that form of “public finance” is fair and reasonable.
In the article that CJ linked, Obama clearly says that he will continue to pursue a “good faith agreement” that results in “real spending limits.”
But he also wants more:
“I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.”
This isn’t as simple of an issue as McCain wants to make it out to be from his stump. And I wonder if McCain will go along with the proposals that Obama is laying out. I think what will ultimately happen is this: McCain continues to call for Obama to uphold his pledge. Obama wants to meet with McCain to discuss his stipulations. McCain won’t meet or won’t agree. Neither one ends up using public financing, which I personally believe, favors Obama and is a good outcome anyway.
Might we consider that maybe McCain wants an excuse to opt out of the system himself.
I’m astonished that McCain is even bringing up campaign finance stuff, given the loan he took under incredibly shady circumstances several months back. He’s really sticking out his chin on this, and I don’t know why the Obama campaign isn’t smacking it. Hopefully they have a good reason.
That’s a good point. He probably does want an excuse to get out. From what I’ve noticed over the past several years, a lot of politicians are in favor of spending limits until it comes time to limit their own spending.
So this is really like a game of political chicken to see who blinks first and what excuse they give. Interesting.
“So this is really like a game of political chicken to see who blinks first and what excuse they give.“
Da.
I guess with this McCain quasi-scandal on the cover of the NYT, he has some different things to talk about instead of just hammering Obama on campaign financing.
This NYT ordeal is detestable in my eyes. I was actually surprised to see something like this come out of them, since the endorsed him and all, yet at the same time I am not surprised from a news outlet like the NYT. They have been known to exaggerate or fabricate stories. They need to learn from Dan Rather and not make these lofty accusations without backing them up with more than “confidential” sources asking this woman to stay away from McCain for a while (which is in no way an indication that he had a romantic relationship with her). I am sorry, I just distrust a lot of media outlets (whether fox news or the NYT, just in case anyone wanted to criticize).
“I am not surprised from a news outlet like the NYT. They have been known to exaggerate or fabricate stories.”
Really? I haven’t noticed much of that, but maybe you have some examples.
As far as this particular story goes, yes the article cites two unnamed sources, but this is common practice with newspapers dealing with politicians. However, an aide from the McCain campaign has apparantly come out and confirmed the underlying facts in this story. So maybe we (you, Rush, McCain) shouldn’t be so quick to label the NYT as “liberal garbage” or something like it…
From Politico:
“But in fact, there was a named source who confirmed facts to both the Times and The Washington Post — and, unexpectedly, he came right out of the McCain camp.
John Weaver, the Arizona Republican’s former chief strategist and a longtime confidant, confirmed to the two papers that he had met with Iseman in 1999 and told her to stop bragging about her influence with McCain and the Senate Commerce Committee. He also said he had done so after “a discussion among campaign leadership” about her. Weaver’s information formed the underpinnings of stories in both papers about McCain aides being worried that Iseman could become a political liability.
In other words, Weaver, an apparent McCain loyalist, had provided the critical, on-the-record foundation for stories denigrating the senator.”
Isn’t it the unwritten rule to have confidants remain “confidential?”
Unless they explicitly state that they wave their source confidentiality, there’s the basic journalistic postulate that protects sources from being identified.
Here is a big example that was widely publicized (I am surprised you had never heard about it).
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E1DB123FF932A25756C0A9659C8B63
Even the public editor of the New York Times back in 2004 admitted to paper having a liberal bias. Now I never said that it was “liberal garbage,” and I don’t appreciate being tied to that type of phraseology (since I am in no way a part of that group). I would also not like to be tied to Rush, as we are in very few ways alike. I am actually surprised that I had to defend this accusation since it is pretty widely accepted that the NYT is a liberally biased newspaper, even amond most liberals. They get yelled at by the far left if they start to veer too far to the right. But that is okay, I don’t mind having to substantiate my claims with examples.
As for the unnamed or confidential sources, I agree that it is customary to keep sources confidential, but not in situations like this. Not during a political campaign. Other times, I agree that it is acceptable, but when you give an anonymous person’s account accusing some politician of some wrong-doing, there has to be a way for the general public to ensure that the sources were not just made up. Now I am not saying that they were made up, but people become desparate during election periods, and will do anything to ensure that a candidate either gets elected or does not. Plenty of journalists have come out and admitted that the “confidential sources” idea has been far too overused in recent history. It is as though these stories have no substance at all to them, because they cannot be backed up with hard evidence.
As for these anonymous sources, and John Weaver’s, statements, the point that I made in my comment was that they, in no shape or manner, accused the Senator of having a romantic relationship. The confidential sources thought that maybe it had become romantic and would hurt the Senator’s reputation, but they never came out and said that it definitely was. I don’t know if you are arguing with that assertion that I made or whether these aides did actually confront Ms. Iseman about staying away from Sen. McCain. I am not arguing the latter, but the former. If you read the actual article (I am assuming that you have), you will see that my former assertion is 100% correct. However, the way that the NYT and other media outlets have spun this is to say that he had a romantic relationship with a lobbyist, which is untrue according to these anonymous sources and those that have been named. Check this out as more ellaboration to the probelms with this article.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24
Citing the Jayson Blair affair as an example of some sort of institutional problem or bias is foolish. The Times was of course deeply embarrassed by it, and they appropriately engaged in no small amount of self flagellation. Blair and Rather have nothing in common. Blair made up entire events and conversations. Rather aired a story that most people believe to be true but could not be clearly proven (a story he shouldn’t have aired). The editorial page of the Times is obviously liberal, but the reporting section of the paper (an entirely separate entity) is not. Their DC bureau was played like a fiddle by the Bush administration during the run up to the war in Iraq, and their stories played a large role in building public and institutional support for the war. Is that something that a paper whose reporting was in the tank for the left would do? I think not.
As for the confidential sourcing of information during political campaigns, it is absolutely normal. It happens all the time. No one would know anything about what goes on inside campaigns if it weren’t for confidential sources. I’ve dealt with the media from inside a campaign many times. I’ve been a confidential source. Of course campaigns use this part of the game to try and use the media to their own ends. However, I can promise you that no legitimate media outlet would do anything with an anonymously sourced piece of personal information like this if it came from a rival campaign. We try floating things like that all the time. It never works. Journalism that relates to politics and government would be impossible without anonymous sourcing.
Blair and Rather do have something in common: improper reporting practices. Whether it is fabricating material or airing an unsubstantiated claim during an election cycle to smear a candidate, these are improper reporting practices. The NYT is facing the exact same thing with the McCain issue right now. They used the information provided by these confidential and named sources to assert that McCain had a romantic relationship with a lobbyist. However, to make a claim like that, you have to back it up. They at least have to back it up with quotes from these sources (which none could definitively say they had a romantic relationship). My point is, as was exemplified in the New Republic article, that even the NYT editor did not want to print this article due to its lack of evidence in making such a profound accusation. Honestly, I believe that this does more to hurt the NYT than it does to hurt McCain. I think that people see right through these accusations and are dissatisfied with the NYT’s standards of reporting.
If you want to include things under such a broad umbrella as “things that aren’t perfect in journalism”, then fine. However, reporting a story without all the fine points you might want is something quite different from running hundreds of articles by an obvious fabulist. Their claim is not unsubstantiated, although it is less substantiated than everyone would like it to be.
In any event, the most potentially damaging part of the story is not the tawdry sexual aspect (though extramarital affairs are hardly new to the John McCain biography). The allegations of trading favors (monetary) for influence has the potential to cut deeply into McCain’s halo of purity on these matters (not sure why he is seen this way, as he has seen more than his share of this type of scandal).
The Times was not trying to smear McCain. If there was some sort of newsroom conspiracy to sink his candidacy (a paranoid delusion if ever there was one), they would have dropped this story either in December/January 07/08 or in September/October 08. This is the best possible time (from a McCain standpoint) for this story to come down. McCain’s blanket denials have raised the stakes on this matter. If any of the Times’ story details can be further substantiated (far from implausible), its the end of his presidential hopes.
Watch out!! Here comes Nader!!!