Obama Prepares Argument to Discard Public-Financing Principle

It's OK with me if Obama uses individual donations up to $2,300 for the general.

Obama is refusing money from federal registered-lobbyists and most PACs, and I appreciate that.

I think we're being premature. Nothing is decided.

“If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Obama

Realize that pursing and agreement is not the same as just up and signing one. It requires negotiations with McCain.

What many don’t seem to understand or overlook is that that agreement isn’t merely looking for a signature. That agreement would have to deal with the upcoming 527s and/or other loop holes for the swiftboating attempts by the Republicans in order for fairness. That agreement would also have to deal with the situation where McCain backs out of public financing as he has during the primary (with the legality of it still in question based upon what I last heard). It’s naïve for anyone to overlook that.

In the event that an agreement isn’t reached, Obama cannot stop raising funds for his campaign. He also can’t reveal much commitment to do so now or the funding will dry up with the perception that people don’t need to contribute (which is at the heart of what the Republicans are up to right now – hurt his funding).

Obama needs a good cashflow until the end of August so there’s no way you’re going to get a commitment out of him now. There won’t be a commitment until McCain sits down and haggles an agreement late this summer.

Most of Obama's donors may be small donors, but most of the money comes from big donors.

Obama made his pledge when he thought he would get political points out of it. Now that it's not to his advantage, he's abandoning it.

If you only have principles when they favor you, then you don't have principles at all.

He made a promise. He should keep it. If he's even 1% of the new kind of politician he claims to be, he'll keep this black-and-white, clear-as-day promise of his. Otherwise, well, he's just like everyone else, except he pretends to be better.

Ok - isn't it against the law for Clinton to accept help from Elton John? The concert is today but the Election Commission says:

U.S.C. SS 441a. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that a foreign national artist would be prohibited by 2 U.S.C. SS 441e from donating his uncompensated volunteer services to the Committee to create an original work of art for the Committee's use in fundraising. The second question raised in your request is whether the contribution exception for uncompensated volunteer services provided by an individual to a candidate or political committee would apply in the specific situation you describe. This question is not reached since the Commission has concluded in responding to your first question that the foreign, national artist may not donate his volunteer services to the Committee for the purposes described in your request. This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning application of the Act, or regulations prescribed by the Commission, to the specific transaction or activity set forth in your request. See 2 U.S.C. SS 437f.

Some of those "individuals" that Obama receives donations from are the wives and law partners of registered lobbyists. Obama takes the money from their surrogates so he doesn't have to report the lobbyist influence on his own campaign. He also has 9 federal lobbyists working on his campaign.

It's a joke to say that his internet fundraising is the same as public financing. He's bought and paid for by lobbyists just like the competition.

I forgot to mention - I REALLY hope he doesn't kick us small donors out of the process with accepting taxpayer funding. The Obama campaign has had some bumps along the road with grassroots fundraising - but in the main, it's been a great experience to participate in this way.

I'm just a student, but so far I have donated $100 to Obama's campaign. I am in favor of public financing of elections mainly so that rich people don't get all the influence. But look at Obama's campaign. 90% of his money has come from donations of $100 or less. That's impressive and very democratic in that it means we all own this campaign not just the people who donate the maximum $2300.

Obama is running a bottom-up, grassroots campaign owned by the people and I'm inspired by it!

I seem to hear a lot of sour grapes here from Hillary's supporters that Obama lies. Address the question, please.

I also have one word for you. Bosnia.

McCain accepted public financing during his nearly bankrupt primary campaign and has illegally accepted private funds before the FEC approved his request to withdraw from the public financing system.

I have donated to a presidential candidate for the first time in my life. I'm 37. It was a whopping $50. My boyfriend has given $25, also for the first time in his 34 years. We are public financing.

Like we sometimes look at a spirit of the law, let's consider this the spirit of the idea behind public financing.

McCain's acceptance of the "pledge" is too cute by half, at least for anyone paying the least bit of attention. While Obama remains engaged in a battle for the Democratic nomination, McCain has already started his general election campaign with money outside the limits. What McCain wants is a limit on the amount to be spent after the conventions, once the Democratics have decided on an opponent. It's like changing the rules in the middle of the game, so that it makes it harder for the losing party to catch up.

I buy it, yes. It's clear the conservatives are gearing up for another swift boat summer and fall, and he -- Obama -- needs to prepared to fight that.

Yes - I buy it. The only way I'd push against this idea is if the networks gave free ad space to candidates. If campaigning in the modern age could be done more rationally - without 30 - 60 second "spots" but rather, full detailed infomercials run on all the major networks (and cable stations) at various times, along with serious "Frontline" style journalism, and genuine exploration of issues with real debates (complete with opening and closing statements...!) when we actually have genuine, publicly funded campaigning, I'm all in favor of nixing outside influx of cash. But in our present system - the American people choosing to fund the campaign of their choice is a far superior option to the American tax dollar being dolled out to candidates we may or may not support. Let the tax dollars fund the actual election.

He won't need it anyway because Hillary's going to win so who cares but its just like him to say one thing and do another.

One word: 527's.

As long as they exist, the limiting of funds to public financing is a joke. Obama would have to be intellectually challenged to go with $85 million public financing when GOP has hundreds of millions marked in 527's for smear campaigns. Obama isn't intellectually challenged and his money is as public as it can get right now.

Obama only does what is good for Obama, if that means he has to change his mind over and over again, so be it. He SAYS what he wants people to believe, and many simply do as they are told. It's so much easier that way. Pied Piper.

First, It would be irresponsible for Obama to take public financing when he has achieved nearly the same result with his web-based fundraising.

Second, I don't think he ever solidly promised to take public financing. The answer he gave was really nuanced.

Third, Has anyone seen how much money the Republicans' 527 groups (ex. the swift boat veterans...) are bringing in? These people will lie and smear and blanket the airwaves - and there is no limit to the money they can raise...Obama will need all he can get to combat those attacks.(as will Clinton, if she wins the nomination)

Also - Shane
(and for that matter) For those Democrats who insist upon making the profoundly absurd and completely devoid of any kind of logic threat that they will not vote for Obama if Hillary does not get the nomination (or vice versa).

WHAT are you THINKING (are you thinking)?

This is just beyond stupid. Go ahead, vote for McCain, then sign your kid up for the military. But hey, who cares as long as you are able to throw your little temper tantrum, Right? Nevermind that the economy will tank, we will be stuck in two (and probably three) wars we can't afford and that are NOT making us safer...Nevermind that the Supreme Court will be solidly corporate and solidly conservative - Kiss your civil rights goodbye...But hey, if your mad that your nominee (who is nearly identical to the other nominee) did not get the nomination - then your kids and mine can suffer for it.

Come ON!!! THINK before you vote! It is nonsense like this that landed us W for eight years.

So, Obama changed his mind. In his position I would too. Is that illegal? Did he sign a contract, take an oath?

C'mon, this is politics. McCain has been gaming the public financing system himself. In fact he may even have done some more or less illegal shenanigans, including using the promise of public money to collateralize a $4 million loan. If McCain chooses to make an issue of public financing, it will boomerang on him. This is one reason why he has been mum on the subject lately.

I agree with Senator Obama..why should taxpayers have to pay for this campaign. Why can't the american people decide?

I think Obama evolved. In nonpolitical speak, Obama lied or contemplated a distinctly different future.

It is obvious his first position was one on principle. This second one is based on his ability to raise money outside of the public financing system's rules.

I think he should just say. I am now able to raise sums of money no one contemplated last year that Democrats would be able to go to regular people and ask for money. These regular people changed the political calculation/system for me and other Democrats.

He can go back to the evils his initial position tried to resolve and say why it is not the case now.

The thing is for him to admit the difference. If flip flop applies, cozy up to it.