Obama Prepares Argument to Discard Public-Financing Principle

Obama's so called centrist positions came about rather quickly, about a year ago, after 20 years of embracing the far left, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Father Phfleiger, Ayers, etc.. Everyone knows this disingenuous move to the center was to get votes ... not because Obama all of a sudden had a true change of heart, and abandoned 20 years of his true beliefs. So, why does a good portion of the American public buy into to this?
What makes these gullible people think that if he gets elected, we won't be stuck with a bunch of far left extremist socialist policies? After all, Obama has been the most liberal senator in congress, and Joe Biden has been the third most liberal senator in congress. Most, and third most, out of 100 senators are bad odds. Wake up American ... keep America strong, elect McCain/Palin to the white house in November.

Although Obama came into this election with virtually no track record, his actions are consistently revealing who he really is ... by saying, or doing what ever it takes to get elected ... whether it's using technicalities to eliminate opponents ... throwing associates under the bus ... winning the nomination without winning the popular vote ... breaking his word ... or buying the Presidency ... just like he bought the nomination. I think it's becoming very clear which candidate is truly sincere, ethical, and trustworthy ... and that's Senator John McCain.

Spin spin spin spin go the Obama fanatics.

Obama has demonstrated, beyond all doubt, that he will do and say what is most convenient for Barack Obama at any given moment. Any pledges, promises or past statements be damned. Some "change".

Obama doesn't play by the rules. He has backers who raise millions more than the other candidates. I wonder what price he will have to pay, for all that support in the end. Money is buying Obama the nomination and he figures it will buy him the presidency. Why would he run on an equal playing field, with public financing? He also stated , the nomination for presidency should be the will of the people, but yet he has done every thing to prevent a revote in Michigan and Florida. He was not to campaign in Florida, thats why he spent 1.3 million in ads in that state prior to the primary.

The ranting here is a little absurd. We're talking about the *general* election here. Should O be the nominee, he will be running against McCain. Not only can O raise more money that McCain--McCain has *already* gamed these same campaign finance laws. Laws that bear his name. And you all think it would be a *good* idea for O to negotiate an agreement on these laws with this guy? If Clinton was in the same position, would you want her to made this deal? Please.

If Obama can't take private funds then how does Hillary get away with a foreign national (Elton John) hosting a fundraiser for her? The law says foreign nationals cannon contribute directly OR INDIRECTLY to any presidential campaign. I don't want to be restricted from voting for the candidate I support.

Um. McCain is committing a crime in the way that he busted the financing cap. You super-sleuths in the media ever going to talk about how he could get YEARS in prison for what he's doing?

Obamas word thats a laugh, this is a sterling example of his ability to be honest to even a small degree.He gave his word and now he wants to not do what he said he would.

Forget any "pledge" or promise or hint- to-consider-discussion about public financing that Obama may or may not have made. All that should go out the window.

Why is anyone even discussing Obama's finances at all?

McCain is breaking the law.

He's not breaking the campaign financing "rules", he is breaking the campaign finance LAW.

You don't make - or keep - agreements with people who have shown they have so little regard for playing fair that they will BREAK THE LAW.

McCain (and his syncophantic press corps) need a lot of nerve to even bring up the subject of campaign financing, much less criticize Obama. The only thing Obama has done is keep his options open.

McCain, on the other hand, IS BREAKING THE LAW!

(But then, under George Bush, when has that ever been a problem for Republicans?)

I bet he's going to spend the extra money on cigarettes and special cologne to throw the journalstic bloodhounds off the trail. Go get 'em Jakey!

I think Barack Obama has come up with a brilliant idea. It's great.

metryjen, you can do that (bombard your congressmen with e-mails and phone calls) now. You don't need Obama in power to do it. If he's telling you that you do, then he's trying to fool you.

If you're talking about him sending you an automatic e-mail letter that you forward on to your congressmen, then you're letting him do your thinking for you. In fact, his opponents will sign up for those same e-mails with the sole purpose of seeing what he wants you to say and then sending their own e-mail saying the exact opposite. And 'round and 'round it goes.

Minions are minions, whether they're fueled by far-right talk radio hosts or far-left liberal politicians. It will be extremely easy to fall into a pattern of simply doing what Obama says without looking too closely or questioning - and that's nothing but a replay of what we've been getting from the right for too many years now. It doesn't serve a diverse America well.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm beating up on you. I truly don't mean to. I appreciate your thoughtful reply to me.

How do some of you commenting manage to even get on the Internet, let alone post a comment. Unreal

In response:

- What could be more "public finance" than 1.2 million donors and an average donation of $200? In a system rife with corruption, lobbyists and self-interested wealthy donors, Barack's financing is about the most democratic method possible.

- From a behavioral economics perspective, there's considerable value for the campaign in securing 1 million-plus donors. Study after study demonstrates that an individual is more engaged, more firm in their opinion, and more likely to persuade others if they have contributed their own money to a cause or issue. Skin in the game makes a Barack donor a more likely advocate, voter and volunteer.

- Those arguing that he's greedy and doesn't need the money should spend 30 minutes educating themselves about our political system and the costs of running a year-long nationwide campaign. You might want to start with the immense disparity between the DNC and RNC fundraising efforts, the surfeit of 527s and the value of being able to out-spend your opponent 3 and 4 to 1.

- Those arguing about promises - fine - Barack is reneging on a promise. That you can write this and not then immediately question the shenanigans that McCain is pulling regarding the financing of his own campaign simply reeks of disingenuousness.

- Those of you stating you will vote for McCain over Obama on this - enjoy electing a man who wasn't the slightest idea about our domestic economy (apparently the recession is being cause by high tax rates!) and will accede to another 4 years of an unwinnable war.

Perhaps Obama should do what McCain did. Accept public financing. Use that public financing as collateral for a loan. Then outspend the public financing pledge.

Obama never agreed to accept public financing, he agreed to talk about it. And he is doing it right now.

Someone earlier said that most of Obama's money is coming from big contributors. This wasn't true in January and I doubt it is true today.

Coming into January, many more of Clinton's donors had already reached the $2,300 limit for individual donations. A report just completed by the Campaign Finance Institute showed that Clinton raised more than half her money in 2007 from donors who gave the maximum allowed by law. Obama, in comparison, raised just one-third of his money from $2,300 donors.

Works for me. Obama has already been engaging in public financing. A large majority of his contributions are coming from small donors (like myself) who are donating on a regular basis (I'm doing it monthly). That's about as public as financing can be. Now, I would like to see him challenge McCain to not take corporate money to show faith that the public can finance elections. Not going to happen, but it would be nice to see Obama challenge him.

Even as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I was never comfortable with excluding private money from electioneering, since it is, truly, a form of political speech. At the same time, until recently, Republicans held a huge advantage in fundraising since there are far more big money donor republicans than dems, or at least there were until recently. But with the advent of small time internet donations, the playing field has been more than leveled, at least for exceptional candidates.
Problem solved. Do away with public financing.

Yep, I buy it.

In fact I heartily endorse it. The republican goon squad is going to go after Obama with everything they've got.

Why should he agree to unilaterally disarm? Especially since his supporters do not want him to.

HoosierSue:

The beauty of the "change" slogan for the Obama campaign is that it isn't just Obama that will create it: its us. No, the Republicans aren't going to just roll over and die, but if they have hundreds of constituents pressuring them to support policies that are good for the American people (for a change) then they'll have to do it, or risk their seats. You see, it's not just about trying to get Obama president, it's about creating a movement, a new "moral majority" if you will, that create change. It's up to US.

Having more than 1 million people donate on average less than $100 dollars is probably the best form of public financing possible. Especially when compared to John McCain who would STILL have to raise money from a few wealthy individuals before getting matching funds from the government.

Had Obama been raising funds the way Clinton and McCain have and then backed off the pledge, I would have been disappointed.

Bottom line - I would want a president who would be beholden to the interests of the 1+ million people who have invested in his campaign rather than a few wealthy individuals.

Financing by massive numbers of small donors is the best kind of public financing.

I don't like government provided financing, because that leaves the gov. to decide who gets money and who doesn't. It distorts elections by providing money based on who won how many votes in previous elections.

I have donated to Edwards, then Clinton and now Obama.

Obama should opt out, if he can do it with small donors.