Marc Ambinder (February 27, 2008) - Here's Your Public Financing, McCain

Hmm, so are you talking to yourself here Mark or is this a conversation from someplace else?

Posted by AhYUp | February 27, 2008 9:43 AM

Obama doesn't take any money from PACs or lobbying groups. I've made several small contributions and tonight we're holding a fundraiser for Obama here in Michigan (the least we can do since we couldn't vote) So far, it looks like we'll have about at least 100 people in attendance adding our numbers to that 1 million figure. Obama is reminding America that our democracy is about "We the People." Isn't it this PUBLIC financing? Also, what Obama is saying to McCain is that he'd agree to matching funds IF both side agree not to accept the support of 527s which could favor McCain.

Posted by Keith Hood | February 27, 2008 10:00 AM

Obama should drop public financing regardless of how it looks. He is trying to win. If he takes public financing, the "swift boating" Rep 527's will crawl out from their hole & drop millions on smear jobs and leave Obama at a disadvantage.

He should hold a press conference and say "I saw what happened to Kerry in 2004. That was not the Rep candidates money, but the effect was the same. I respect McCain, but I am keeping this money at hand in case I need to agressively repudiate smear tactics.

I think liberals and Dems and even Repubs that might vote for him would understand and accept that decision.

Posted by martin | February 27, 2008 10:08 AM

Amen @ Martin..

Posted by Ann | February 27, 2008 10:28 AM

McCain, with his underhanded use of the promise of public funds to get loans, and then trying to weasel out of the public funding in order to escape the limitations, has no basis to criticize Obama on this subject.

Posted by bajasteve | February 27, 2008 10:40 AM

Marc has just outlined what I view as a perfect argument for the Obama campaign to make: that the goal has always been to minimize special-interest groups, etc, and 1M small donors is not something he ever believed was possible several months ago.

I would expect him to make this argument shortly after locking up the nomination.

Posted by Jake | February 27, 2008 10:40 AM

Oh, and I forgot to mention, McCain is fucked.

Posted by Jake | February 27, 2008 10:41 AM

What percentage of those 1 million donations come from bundlers?

Posted by Aram | February 27, 2008 10:46 AM

"Democats"..."orgnanically"

I think the Atlantic should consider hiring people who can actually spell.

I hear that's important to writing 'n all.

Posted by Mark | February 27, 2008 10:46 AM

It would be an interesting "experiment" to reduce the campaign contribution maximum from the current $2300 to say $200.

Posted by RobertSeattle | February 27, 2008 10:48 AM

What's worse if you're Obama, looking bad because you've reneged on a committment, or looking bad because you foolish squander a HUGE money advantage in order to keep an earlier commmittment made under admittedly different circumstances. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd rather have a president with an arguably fluid position on public financing than a fool.

Posted by Obama fan | February 27, 2008 10:49 AM

I have already written to the Obama campaign to urge that Barack reply to any challenge from McCain that he is using public financing already -- from us, the million-plus who have contributed already and from thousands or millions more who will contribute for the general election campaign.

I contribute to the public fund when I file my taxes, but I believe that in this case, Obama's campaign is already complying with its intent by refusing to accept contributions from Political Action Committees and from lobbyists.

Posted by Harriet | February 27, 2008 10:50 AM

I think Obama will eventually take public financing. The time between the convention and general election is only 8 weeks and 85 Million is more than enough for that.

Until then, he can rack up the score for the primaries and build the organization needed!

Posted by Wayne | February 27, 2008 10:56 AM

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/why-obama-should-reject-spendi.php

Posted by No to Spending Limits | February 27, 2008 11:00 AM

Wayne,

I could be very much mistaken, but I think that accepting public financing also limits what you can spend in your campaign. Does anyone here know the specific rules?

Posted by texasdem | February 27, 2008 11:02 AM

What has happened to that money in the past when candidtaes have opted out. If I recall, the box on the tax return talks only about presidential elections. Where did the money go in 2000 and 2004? Obama should say he doesn't need it and suggest the money be used for a good cause -- vetrans benefits, body armour, Katrina aid.

Posted by Marco | February 27, 2008 11:13 AM

Marco & texasdem, Read the TPM posting above. It explains a lot.

Posted by KarlLandRover | February 27, 2008 11:21 AM

I am with bajasteve. McCain can't even make the argument that strongly because he has already been caught trying to weasel out of the system and have it both ways. Given that his likely response to the FEC is going to be to give them the finger, campaign finance is likely going to be a big loser any time he brings it up.

Posted by socratic_me | February 27, 2008 11:21 AM

"One of the biggest structural disadvantages the Republican Party faces over the next generation is that they haven't found an alternative source of revenue. The older generation of ideological and corporate donors are fading away. There is no replacement cohort."

Actually there is an equivalent source of revenue for republicans. Ron Paul demonstrated it with his "money bombs" and strong internet fund raising. The problem is the mainstream republican candidates don't appeal to issues that generate the kind of enthusiasm among potential donors that Obama and Ron Paul did.

Posted by Richard Bankhead | February 27, 2008 11:39 AM

I've already sent a comment in on BarackObama.com that it would be insane for Barack Obama to accept public financing.

And, my family (Mama, 2 sisters, Niece+Nephew-in-law, Aunt, Uncle, me) - just got finished collecting the monthly Obama donation and sent it in.

It's not a hardship for any of us, and every little bit helps the campaign.

Posted by rikyrah | February 27, 2008 11:43 AM

Thanks KarLandRover.

I understand the political rationale, but there is a related process question. The $85M it seems to me must be legally restricted for use in a presidential campaign or some related use. You don't after all check a box on your tax return saying "here's $3 to balance the budget". Where CAN that money legally go if a candidate turns it down? I agree that Obama shouldn't take it, but I think he can very smartly suggest an alternative use for the money. But I'd like to know where it is allowed to go? He could say it should go to down-ballot candidates. Or returned to the taxpayers. Or put to another use. But the law probably has something to say about that. Does anyone know what happens to the money?

Posted by Marco | February 27, 2008 11:47 AM

I am a small donor, but one of the million!

There is NO way that Obama should be tied to public financing. He should quietly let McCain out of puplic financing but let the DNC make the point that McCain used fed funds as 'collateral' for a $4million loan. It is pretty shiftless of McCain to try to weasle out. But DNC should let McCain do it.

If McCain tries to box Obama in, Obama will win the media wars because the 1M donors is so fantastic that Obama will make the case that 'free speach' will not be denied. (Kinda a Republican talking point) Nice to turn the tables on the right wing distaste of McClain/Finegold.

The internet has made McCain/Finegold moot.

I am a proud small donor supporter of Obama. He should not use public funds. Why should he use taxpayer money if he doesn't have to?

Posted by Ellen Hamm | February 27, 2008 11:57 AM

There is a profound and meaningful difference between the 'Letter of the Law' and the 'Spirit of the Law'.

Public financing of campaigns developed out of a very real concern that campaign finance had been overcome by special interest and large corporate donors; to set right this departure, Public Financing would level the playing field for voters and restore the people to their rightful place of primacy within the American electoral process. That is the 'spirit' behind public financing of election campaigns - to eliminate the unfair influence exercised by lobbyists and large corporate donors, and to return the elections to the people.

With One Million unique contributors, with an average donation of $109, and an ongoing commitment to refuse contributions from Lobbyists or Corporate Donors, Senator Barack Obama and his campaign has, in fact and spirit, created a campaign funded by the public - by people from a broad spectrum of society, from every ethnicity, gender, income group, gender, religion, etc. -in short, Senator Obama has been financed by America in snapshot.

This may not be what McCain would hope for, and I doubt he can energize his base in similar fashion, but I for one believe it is both empowering and exhilarating for these individuals, these donors, to have a share in the candidacy of Barack Obama - a share they might not fully appreciate with a more impersonal Public Financing.

If Obama continues to limit himself to individual donors, and eschews the lure of lobbyist and special interest group donors as he has done thus far - well, while he may not be living up to the Letter of the Law, he will best capture the Spirit is was meant to encourage.

Posted by J. Steven Alter | February 27, 2008 12:01 PM

"So you are changing your mind as the circumstance warrant?" "Yup"

That, right there, is so refreshing after the obtuseness of the Bush Administration. Gee, wouldn't be wonderful to have a president who is flexible enough to adapt to 'conditions on the ground'? Yup.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | February 27, 2008 12:13 PM

Since only 3% of his donations have been from the big money couldn't kill the issue by making a show of returning it? Then challenging McCain to do the same?

Posted by Dirk | February 27, 2008 12:21 PM

McCain likes to set rules for others, but not himself

Posted by Bert Fretts | February 27, 2008 12:58 PM

McCain likes to set rules for others, but not himself

Posted by Bert Fretts | February 27, 2008 12:58 PM

McCain likes to set rules for others, but not himself

Posted by Bert Fretts | February 27, 2008 12:58 PM

@ Ellen

"That, right there, is so refreshing after the obtuseness of the Bush Administration. Gee, wouldn't be wonderful to have a president who is flexible enough to adapt to 'conditions on the ground'? Yup."

Because it's a huge CHANGE to have a president(ial candidate) who disregards political promises and changes the rules when they're not in his favour. Sure gives me HOPE for an Obama presidency to be somehow a meaningful change from the Bush Status Quo.

Never thought I'd say this after 2000 but Nader looks more attractive by the day.

Posted by Expat_UK | February 27, 2008 1:02 PM

Consider this please. If both candidates agree to public financing, then NEITHER candidate will take money from special interests. You see, the question is not just whether or not Obama takes such money. If Obama eschews public financing, then McCain will as well. Since he does not have the ability to get the small donations like Obama does, then McCain will have his hand out to the bundlers and special interests. You need to look at this from the standpoint of improving the political process (one of Obama's central themes).

On the other hand (dang that other hand), if both candidates agree to public financing then the relative impact of the 527s will increase. Now, Obama has run one of the most incredibly DISCIPLINED campaigns in history. Any 527s that attempt to assist Obama could very well hurt more than they help (given Obama's reputation). I do not believe that is true for McCain. So, this would be to McCain's advantage.

If Obama does not accept public financing, I think he will raise whatever money needed to get his message out in a disciplined way. He would be well advised to discourage the 527s from acting on his behalf.

Essentially, I strongly believe that not accepting public financing is to Obama's advantage in this election. The downside is that he will be going back on his promise and that it will be a missed opportunity to improve our political process.

It is a hard decision.

Posted by EricV | February 27, 2008 2:00 PM

McCain can not afford a head to head discussion on campaign financing. He has too many liabilities:

- The infamous loan

- Use of qualification to avoid the cost of signature gathering to get on the OH and DE ballots

- Saying he can opt out at any time, ignoring statements to the contrary from the FEC

This issue has become a serious loser for McCain. Couple it with his cadre of lobbyists (after years of raging against lobbyists) and his early statements on Iraq (agreeing we would be greeted as liberators) and you've got one weak candidate.

Posted by LFC | February 27, 2008 2:05 PM

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released the following statement by Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker on Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee leadership’s personal attacks on John McCain:

“Today, a speaker at our event made a highly inappropriate statement about Senator Obama. In response, Senator McCain immediately denounced the remarks and apologized to Senator Obama.

“In contrast, Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee leadership have launched a personal and negative assault on Senator McCain’s character. Howard Dean himself questioned Senator McCain’s integrity, and a DNC official called McCain a liar.

“We agree with the Obama campaign’s statement today that this debate should be ‘respectful and focused on issues,’ and it would be encouraging to see Senator Obama denounce the character attacks coming from the leadership of his Party.”

Posted by Peter | February 27, 2008 2:23 PM

So, Obama lies to the American people and his supporters say that's actually the right thing to do?

These guys are just... creepy.

Posted by ObamaTheLier | February 27, 2008 2:25 PM

If Mitch Mcconnell is right, a good republican senator, then all of us that wish to give money to Senator Obama are exercising our right of free speech and it should certainly be allowed.

Only an autocrat would limit campaign financing to that alloted by a public financing organization that doesn't even have its board members picked. McCain won't use public financing either. Therefore Obama will be able to do whatever he wants about it. And my wife and I are right now ready to give him $200 more dollars for the general campaign. I would guess most of those people that have given money for the primaries will give him like amounts and probably even more for the general. This is the future we are talking about here, people. This is the major opportonity to change the way business/politics is done from the ground up.

Posted by Tim | February 27, 2008 2:52 PM

Per Mark Schmitt...

Obama's precise statement was, and has always been, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." That's an artful statement, and it's not artful in a "meaning of 'is'" sense -- it's exactly the right answer. A commitment to "preserve a publicly financed election" would have to mean much more than whether both participate in the system. It would require some significant agreement about how to handle outside money, 527s, "Swift Boat"-type attack groups, party money, etc., and other factors that have undermined the last two publicly financed elections, from both sides. It is hardly an evasion to describe this as an agreement to be negotiated, rather than a simple pledge.

Of course, how can he pursue a meaningful agreement with a man who has done everything in his power to dodge the very laws he helped create, and who is ignoring the head of the FEC? If McCain had remained clean, he would have had some leverage. Obama merely has to point out that McCain has played so fast and loose with the law, there is no meaningful agreement possible.

Posted by LFC | February 27, 2008 3:07 PM

"It is hardly an evasion to describe this as an agreement to be negotiated, rather than a simple pledge."

LOL

This is pathetic.

It was a pledge but it wasn't a pledge.

Change the way business/politics is done? Yeah, right.

Posted by apol | February 27, 2008 4:08 PM

Me, I'd rather throw out "campaign finance reform," since it's served to increase the advantage of incumbency and put additional obstacles in the path of third-party or independent campaigns.

That said- and I'm an Obama supporter- I don't think this fight makes either one look good. It makes Obama look weaselly and McCain openly hypocritical.

Posted by Kris Overstreet | February 27, 2008 4:12 PM

"It was a pledge but it wasn't a pledge."

The only reason it's a "pledge" is because the media has called it that, not Obama. It isn't as simple as both agreeing to accept only public financing, because 527 groups operate outside of this. 527 groups combined with public financing could make big business and special interests in even more control of the campaign than usual. These groups operate outside the campaigns they can make ridiculous claims and operate on huge cash inflows from lobbyists and businesses.

McCain has already bent/broken the current public financing laws, so he has already been proven corrupt on this issue. There has to be trust on both sides for public financing to work and Obama is right in not trusting McCain.

Posted by JordanT | February 27, 2008 5:12 PM

apol:

"This is pathetic." Indeed.

"If I am the Democratic nominee..." Is he?

"...I will aggressively pursue an agreement..." So you claim some superior and irrational wisdom that he will not pursue such an agreement, if he does become the nominee?

But where is this 'pledge'?

I'm sure you would like Senator Obama to accede to any and all conditions that you (and Senator McCain) would prefer - giving McCain all the advantage, and Obama none.

And then, of course, you could campaign against Senator Obama by pointing out that anyone who would negotiate any agreement that ceded all advantages to the other side is not fit to be the leader of our nation.

How quaint. Oh, I'm sorry - I meant 'pathetic'.

Posted by Jaime Frontero | February 27, 2008 6:04 PM

Fun finds of the day...

"Strong Words On “Conflict of Interest” in the Reform Community"

http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/news.html?AID=1205

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/010322.html

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/McCAIN%20WITHDRAWAL.doc

It seems McCain has basically been asking the GOP to go easy on Obama because Mc knows Obama can turn up items like this...

"If he is able to withdraw, then he can try to raise funds for his campaign without limit through the end of the Republican National Convention on September 4. If he cannot, then – judging from the campaign’s FEC reports through January 31, 2007 – the campaign undoubtedly has already exceeded its spending limit through the convention, whereas Senators Clinton and Obama, who have steered clear of the primary public-funding system, face no such fundraising or spending constraints through the end of the Democratic Convention on August 28."

Posted by kravitz | February 27, 2008 6:09 PM

McCain has his own public finanancing demons. He got on the ballot in many states by promising to get public financing (without the need for signatures), and is now reneging on that promise. For a 'straight talker' he is absolutely full of it.

Posted by KyleS | February 27, 2008 6:11 PM

Fun finds of the day...

"Strong Words On “Conflict of Interest” in the Reform Community"

http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/news.html?AID=1205

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/010322.html

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/McCAIN%20WITHDRAWAL.doc

It seems McCain has basically been asking the GOP to go easy on Obama because Mc knows Obama can turn up items like this...

"If he is able to withdraw, then he can try to raise funds for his campaign without limit through the end of the Republican National Convention on September 4. If he cannot, then – judging from the campaign’s FEC reports through January 31, 2007 – the campaign undoubtedly has already exceeded its spending limit through the convention, whereas Senators Clinton and Obama, who have steered clear of the primary public-funding system, face no such fundraising or spending constraints through the end of the Democratic Convention on August 28."

Posted by kravitz | February 27, 2008 6:21 PM

Since someone asked about the guidelines for Public Financing in the general election:

To be eligible to receive the public funds, the candidate must limit spending to the amount of the grant (estimated to be about $85 million), and cannot accept private contributions for the general (not primary, which has special rules) presidential campaign.

However, candidates can raise funds for General Election Legal and Accounting Compliance funds (GELAC), which are to be used exclusively to pay legal and accounting expenses for the campaign. These expenditures are not subject to the above limit. (Lawyers are also at the top of the list in getting paid – and they threw in bean counters, too.)

Additionally, in 2007 the FEC ruled that up to 5% of broadcast advertising can be paid for using GELAC, since that is amount spent on the required disclaimers under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, (the “I approve this message” requirement).

Candidates may also spend up to $50,000 of their personal funds for the general election without violating the spending limit.

Minor or third party nominees may also be eligible for federal funding, but the process is a bit more complex.

(Above is from the FEC and Common Cause websites)

Posted by dmhlt | February 27, 2008 7:53 PM

WHAT DID OBAMA PROMISE?

Politics up to the Minute
by Mark Halperin | Wednesday, February 27, 2008

http://thepage.time.com/mccain-research-on-obamas-campaign-finance-pledge/

McCain Research on Obama’s Campaign Finance Pledge

FACT CHECK: Less Than Three Months Ago, Obama Answered “Yes” He Will Participate In Public Financing In General Election If His Republican Opponent Agreed To Do Same:

In The Fall Of 2007, Obama Answered “Yes” To Question “Will You Participate In The Presidential Public Financing System” If His Opponent Likewise Agreed. “The [Obama] campaign went even further in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. The questionnaire posed a very simple question to the candidates: ‘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?’.

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. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Posted by SSM | February 27, 2008 8:46 PM

Senator Obama's response is clearly of the form: "Yes. If..."

"Yes. [snip a bunch of irrelevant self-serving political-speak] If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

And I believe he'd accept an agreement that would provide adequate guarantees against 527's, corporate freebies, and some semblance of the old, equal-time provisions; at the least as applied to media editorializing - which is only a cover for our media (overwhelmingly owned by the right wing) conducting such dirty tricks as the whole "Barack Hussein Obama/Madrassa/not saluting the flag Photoshop/Muslim garb" BS they're using at the moment.

I don't know if such an agreement is possible - but I'd imagine it will be pursued. In any case, my original point stands:

"And then, of course, you could campaign against Senator Obama by pointing out that anyone who would negotiate any agreement that ceded all advantages to the other side is not fit to be the leader of our nation."

Senator Obama, of course, is.

Further, I want a President who can respond to changing conditions - like Senator McCain's attempted illegal end-run against the Public Financing laws - which he himself authored. Frankly, in Obama's position, I'd consider McCain's tactics to be a deal-breaker, taken just by themselves.

McCain wanted public financing in the primaries - when he was down and broke. Now? Not so much, hmmm? But he does see the tremendous disadvantage that the Republicans will have this cycle, in raising funds.

Bah. Pig in a poke. The good Senator Obama should just invite the not-so-good Senator McCain to offer something airtight and worthwhile. If not, the hell with him.

Posted by Jaime Frontero | February 28, 2008 12:00 AM

Firstly,let's look at what we have:
Obama Hussien-Obama..referred as a "homeboy" on internet sites.
Obama, let's face it..is a creation of the "YouTube Generation."..those too lazy to READ..facts, but rather watch a 3 minute clip and decide upon that. And..yes..he is charming..
.anyone who has voted, or intends to vote for him..AND taking the time to really see the FACTS that surround this man and realize what a fake he is either one of two things:
1. very STUPID
2. anti-American