Obama opts out of public campaign finance system

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday he'll bypass the federal public financing system in the general election, abandoning an earlier commitment to take the money if his Republican rival did as well.

ADVERTISEMENT

Obama, who set records raising money in the primary election, will forgo more than $84 million that would have been available to him in the general election. He would be the first candidate to do so since Congress passed 1970s post-Watergate campaign finance laws. Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee in waiting, has taken steps to accept the public funds in the general election.

Obama officials said they decided to take that route because McCain is already spending privately raised funds toward the general election campaign. Obama has vastly outraised McCain, however, and would likely retain that advantage if McCain accepts the public money.

The public finance system is paid for with the $3 contributions that taxpayers can make to the presidential fund in their tax returns.

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama told supporters in a video message Thursday. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."

Obama said McCain and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.

"And we've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations," Obama said.

Obama has shattered president campaign fundraising records, raking in more than $265 million thus far.

Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer said he had met with McCain lawyers to discuss terms for both campaigns operating in the public financing system, but he said they could not agree on how to limit spending by the campaigns and outside groups heading into the late summer party conventions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes I read about this a while ago - there's actually more going on there (problem-wise) than the "flip-flop".

I posted the NPR article on this a while back.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Yes I read about this a while ago - there's actually more going on there (problem-wise) than the "flip-flop".

I posted the NPR article on this a while back.

He just seems to be making alot of mistakes lately. He's giving McCain alot of ammo.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's a lot of problems with the campaign finance system in this election - McCain has his own problems on that score as well.

[Ban Hammer 14,291]

The public finance system is paid for with the $3 contributions that taxpayers can make to the presidential fund in their tax returns.

i always check no on this. why should i contribute to professional liars?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The public finance system is paid for with the $3 contributions that taxpayers can make to the presidential fund in their tax returns.

i always check no on this. why should i contribute to professional liars?

Totally agree

[Peikko 1,575]

So, how do you suggest a country is run then guys? You don't want to fund politicians because they are all liars (probably true at some level anyway) but if you take away any semblance of non partisan funding then you are going to simply get politicians who can raise cash. That's not really a good direction to go in in my opinion.

I think Barack is showing is once again, that his ideology is secondary to his political ambition. This isn't necessarily a 'bad' thing, but it is just more proof to me that he isn't really that interested in 'fixing' how politics is undertaken.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

So, how do you suggest a country is run then guys? You don't want to fund politicians because they are all liars (probably true at some level anyway) but if you take away any semblance of non partisan funding then you are going to simply get politicians who can raise cash. That's not really a good direction to go in in my opinion.

I think Barack is showing is once again, that his ideology is secondary to his political ambition. This isn't necessarily a 'bad' thing, but it is just more proof to me that he isn't really that interested in 'fixing' how politics is undertaken.

Change you can beleive in? For anyone to beleive Obama is going to single handedly change washington is fcuking nuts and very gullible!

[Ban Hammer 14,291]

So, how do you suggest a country is run then guys? You don't want to fund politicians because they are all liars (probably true at some level anyway) but if you take away any semblance of non partisan funding then you are going to simply get politicians who can raise cash. That's not really a good direction to go in in my opinion.

I think Barack is showing is once again, that his ideology is secondary to his political ambition. This isn't necessarily a 'bad' thing, but it is just more proof to me that he isn't really that interested in 'fixing' how politics is undertaken.

i don't believe in contributing to what is a broke system. if anything, it is my opinion there should be a cap on election spending.

[HAL 9000 96]

yep

[Peikko 1,575]

I concur, I think the American presidential election system is bollocks but what is anyone doing to actually change it? Just not contributing to the fund isn't a very positive contribution in my opinion and it could lead to a worse situation because cutting off non partisan funding contributes to the requirement for politicians to solicit funds anywhere they can and the winners may very well be the sleaziest, cheasiest contenders who will not have any interest in making changes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I concur, I think the American presidential election system is bollocks but what is anyone doing to actually change it? Just not contributing to the fund isn't a very positive contribution in my opinion and it could lead to a worse situation because cutting off non partisan funding contributes to the requirement for politicians to solicit funds anywhere they can and the winners may very well be the sleaziest, cheasiest contenders who will not have any interest in making changes.

America had Warren G. Harding (basically a mob boss posing as president). I can't imagine that it would benefit from a Silvio Berlusconi-type.

[GaryC 7]

So, how do you suggest a country is run then guys? You don't want to fund politicians because they are all liars (probably true at some level anyway) but if you take away any semblance of non partisan funding then you are going to simply get politicians who can raise cash. That's not really a good direction to go in in my opinion.

I think Barack is showing is once again, that his ideology is secondary to his political ambition. This isn't necessarily a 'bad' thing, but it is just more proof to me that he isn't really that interested in 'fixing' how politics is undertaken.

i don't believe in contributing to what is a broke system. if anything, it is my opinion there should be a cap on election spending.

There you go. Now that is an idea. Set a limit that any candidate can spend. Have a series of debates to air each ones positions. Stop the special interest advertising. Shorten the election season by having one primary day instead of months of it and then have the election 2 months later. Set up a special "election"channel on cable, satellite and local over the air just for political advertising.

[Ban Hammer 14,291]

I concur, I think the American presidential election system is bollocks but what is anyone doing to actually change it? Just not contributing to the fund isn't a very positive contribution in my opinion and it could lead to a worse situation because cutting off non partisan funding contributes to the requirement for politicians to solicit funds anywhere they can and the winners may very well be the sleaziest, cheasiest contenders who will not have any interest in making changes.

and that's different from things in the past decade or two how?

So, how do you suggest a country is run then guys? You don't want to fund politicians because they are all liars (probably true at some level anyway) but if you take away any semblance of non partisan funding then you are going to simply get politicians who can raise cash. That's not really a good direction to go in in my opinion.

I think Barack is showing is once again, that his ideology is secondary to his political ambition. This isn't necessarily a 'bad' thing, but it is just more proof to me that he isn't really that interested in 'fixing' how politics is undertaken.

i don't believe in contributing to what is a broke system. if anything, it is my opinion there should be a cap on election spending.

There you go. Now that is an idea. Set a limit that any candidate can spend. Have a series of debates to air each ones positions. Stop the special interest advertising. Shorten the election season by having one primary day instead of months of it and then have the election 2 months later. Set up a special "election"channel on cable, satellite and local over the air just for political advertising.

and it will mean substance over who's got the biggest warchest to run useless ads with.

[Dan J 277]

There was also a story recently of McCain accepting donations of something around $47,000. Since the bill he sponsored himself limits direct campaign contributions, the money would be mostly sent to state RNC accounts in battleground states. But the money would still be used to campaign for McCain.