flip-flop

Not a flip flop. He stipulated he would opted out under certain conditions that McCain refused to meet, ie specifically the 527s which were used last time to swiftboat Kerry. I have my problems with it, but I understand the decision given the politics of it.

Pubic financing?

akaison,

It doesn't matter whether it's a flip-flop or not. It matters (and we won't know if it's well played until we know) how the media spins it.

I wouldn't doubt that in most peoples' minds 527=liberal dirty hippies. Most people will think "since when does Obama have to worry about 527s supporting McCain ... that's a stupid condition put on just to cover up a flip flop". That's how it'll be spun by "even the liberal media" and that's what people will believe.

In politics perception is everything and it ain't over until the media, which loves McCain, makes its decision.

all of this is true, but right now the media is reporting it fairly accurate. who is to say what will happen in the long term. however, i do think this has a limited shelf life. mccain comes to this with unclean hands so he can't stay too long on this topic.

In politics perception is everything and it ain't over until the media, which loves McCain, makes its decision.

A candidate's stance on campaign finance reform has roughly, um, er....zero impact on said candidate's chances.

The economy, gas prices, Iraq, evil gay weddings, climate change, scary ministers, John McCain's creeping senility, hard-working (white) Americans, Jakartan madrassas, Michelle Obama's hatred of all things American, healthcare, Hanoi prisons, the GWOT, Cindy McCain's icy snobbery, abortion, gun ownership rights...such will be the raging controversies of the day upon which the general election campaign will be fought. Obama's decisions regarding obscure campaign financing regulations the vast majority of Americans neither know nor care about won't even crack the top 200 on the above list of campaign issues.

Finally, a take-no-prisoners Democrat. Fucking A!

It won't matter how the media spins this, because nobody outside of a few blogs and a couple of newspapers is going to give a flying fuck.

The media can decide what issues it talks about, but it can't actually decide what issues people are going to care about.

It's interesting that TAP who was so instrumental in promoting McCain-Feingold is now not too upset about Obama's decision.Did Pew get their monies worth out of Robert Kuttner and gang? Anyway,Obama is a raving hypocrite for saying he's for public financing and now going the private route.I guess it's like being for public education but sending your kids to a private Chicago school.Be warned though,in the future,some incumbent President will take the same route as Obama.

He was for public financing before he burned through $300M and liked it.

smart move by Obama, bad result for campaign finance reform

the video is shameless not savy

"I guess it's like being for public education but sending your kids to a private Chicago school."

Yes, Steve, it's precisely like that. "I wish the system worked for everyone, and I'm going to do this and this to fix it, but as long as it's irredeemably broken, I'm not going to risk my [daughters'] future on that system when I've got the means to do something better."

Does Obama murmur at all?

He should definitely murmur more.

I love how we can tell the GOP trolls along this thread. None of you seem to have a problem with the double standard that you would want Obama to enforce on himself. Like I said, I am not comfortable with our present system, but I sure as hell am not going to sit here reading lectures about campaign finance when McCain is actively trying to skirt the law he helped create or ignore that he's more than willing to use 527s. If you want to bitch, go change the law to make sure its really a level playing field rather than tying only the Democrats hands.

Be warned though,in the future,some incumbent President will take the same route as Obama.

Yes, it would just be terrible for our democracy should a future incumbent fund his/her campaign via small contributions from millions of ordinary citizens.

Be warned though,in the future,some incumbent President will take the same route as Obama.

Already happened.

In 2004, Bush, the lone Republican candidate, again opted out of the system and raised over $200 million in private donations, far exceeding the $44 million spending limit for candidates that are accepting public financing.

What exactly broken between last year when he said he would use it and now when he opted out claiming it was broken? I could really care less one way or the other but the flip flopping dishonesty isan issue. Don't claim your opting out today becuase it's broken when its the exact same system. Nothing has changed.

The part where McCain refused to actually require 527s to not run smear campaigns happened.

I think this is the right tactical decision. But if obama's appeal is to transcend cheap political tactics, this is weak.

As Russ Feingold has made quite clear,this is not a principled decision. The suggestion that his small donor base is the equivalent of public financing is entirely specious. First, he is receiving millions of dollars from big donors as well-wall street, hedge funds,pharmaceutical and from lobbyists (law firm personal donations). So he is not defeating the system.

Two, the whole point of public financing is to implement it system-wide. The Obama phenomenon cannot be replicated by other candidates, so by not accepting he is not altering the political landscape for anyone except himself. Suggesting that political considerations are ultimately more important than principle, that's fine. But why would any candidate then support public financing. To alter a competitive disadvantage? None really exists. K Street has already moved over to the democratic party. Few democrats want public financing if it limits their incumbency prowess and coffers. This sets a bad precedent, argue it away all you like. It might have been politically advantageous to to support the Iraq War or the Patriot Act. However,such capitulations are inherently self-defeating and only perpetuate electoral deficiencies in the long run.

Akiason, call me GOP troll if you like, the truth is that I have no need for you. I am member of the left and care little for your partisan political ghetto.

if you can figure out some way to actually create a working public election finance system- I would be happy to go along with it. if your goal is to tie o ur hands, while leaving the GOP to manipulate the system, then you call it whatever the hell you want- I still agree with Obama's decision. It's really that system. Feingold created a crappy law. It's not done anything to prevent either party from doing whatever the hellthey want. I am not interested in holding one party to a standard that the other does not follow. You follow? That's not democracy to me. Democracy is both sides following the same rules.

Obama could lose with honor, or (hopefully) win with less honor. He probably asked himself "what would a Republican do"? (with apologies to Used Cars)

School choice BAD... except for me!
Public financing GOOD... except for me!
Special interest groups BAD.. except for George Soros, move on, AFSCME, Excelon employees etc, for me!

Liar. Liar.

Obama's decision is a flip-flop, a blow to campaign finance reform, and the right political move. On one hand it highlights how hollow Obama's 'new politics' really is and on the other is shows he will do what it takes to win. I prefer brass knuckle winners over principled martyrs.

Many have said it is not about Obamas past, his associations, his friends or his prior comments, its all about his policy positions.

We'll clearly his policy positions cannot be trusted because he will clearly lie, con, and say whatever he thinks he has to to get elected.

He faked his sincerity on campaign financing very well for three years, now that he has the nomination he can throw away that lie.

Rev Wright knew Obama best, he's just a politician....

School choice BAD... except for me!
Public financing GOOD... except for me!
Special interest groups BAD.. except for George Soros, move on, AFSCME, Excelon employees etc, for me!

Liar. Liar.

Well said....well said.

Since none of Obama's detractors have explained how, exactly, he "lied," I assume they're just being a bunch of whiners upset that the candidate they can't stand is on the cusp of running a campaign which crushes all GOP opposition before it.

These pro-GOP pigs keep saying that he "lied" but don't back up their assertions.

It's not about facts, it's about ElV, various Anonymoi, and other ignoramuses telling each other falsehoods in the hopes that they will feel "true" and that they can feel better about themselves after they've lost.

Leave the losers to wallow in their delusions. Rescue those that are in touch with reality. The delusional dead-enders spending their lives lying to themselves about reality can make up the remaining rump-GOP that will be left.

Since none of you can back up your assertion that Obama lied, your claims are just a lot of pissing in the sea. Obama is better than you, smarter than you, and has better political instincts and plans for America than that loser McCain. Just because that's the issue at hand doesn't mean you can scream that Obama's a "liar" when he tells you how he's going to beat you guys.

It's really that system. Feingold created a crappy law. It's not done anything to prevent either party from doing whatever the hellthey want.

Word.

A plea to fellow liberals: consider, just for a moment, adopting my absolutist First Amendment position that the government has no business telling a free people how much they can donate to support the political ideals they favor.

Get rid of limits (they don't work in any event), enact (and enforce!) extremely tough disclosure laws, let the press report on who's funding whom, and let the voters decide. That's pretty much what's happening now anyway, and it seems to be working to the benefit of progressive ideals.

There is a simple solution that would solve a lot of problems. Namley force free advertising by candidates onto the networks because of their license which they get for pennies on the dollar through the FCC. Advertising is where the bulk of money goes. I would also limit money spent to issue advocacy rather than candidate targetting. I would tighten the rules regarding state versus federal funding such that there is no wiggle room. Then, and only then would I say public financing makes sense. I would end 527s where its not strictly issues advocacy.

I believe John McCain was part of the campaign finance reform as well.

Looks like Obama just shit all over the idea of finance reform because its to his personal advantage.

Now that Hillary's out of the race, akaison is making more sense. A lot more, in fact. Is Petey next?

....Get rid of limits (they don't work in any event), enact (and enforce!) extremely tough disclosure laws, let the press report on who's funding whom, and let the voters decide..... Jasper

...After the FEC issued its ruling, the rhetoric became less equivocal. On March 1, Burton challenged Republican candidates to follow McCain and agree to public financing. He said that Obama, if nominated, would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Many newspapers, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, interpreted this Burton statement as a commitment to accept public financing in the event of an Obama-McCain race. As far as I can tell, the Obama campaign made no effort to dispel this impression. ...The 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?"
... The candidate highlighted the simple answer "Yes" and elaborated as follows:....
The Obama campaign has said different things at different times on the issue of public financing. While there may have been a little wriggle room in some campaign statements, Obama's affirmative answer to the Midwest Democracy Network seems unequivocal. Now that Obama is raising $1 million a day, his enthusiasm for public financing appears to have waned....

This allows for bundling from corporate fatcats and is politics as usual. No to reform, no to disclosure. There are tough disclosure laws in effect now, and they're meaningless. Anonymous groups are incorporated, big money boys bundle their dough, and the candidate is beholden to the money, not the voter.

At one time 'progressive' stood for something. Now such issues are cast off by Obama's supporters just as 'conservative' principles were cast aside by Bushistas.

Public financing is millions of Americans and is the only way to keep big money from buying pols as it bought the media and the country.

mike the reason I think many of you are trolls is because of your selective analysis. you have no problem talking about obama, but not a word about mccain. well unless it's to pretend mccain is following the fec rules when in actually its heavily trying to get around them.

and to cut down on the lying that's going on with the "real progressives" in this thread:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/20/131625/697/918/539111

like I said, I am all for a public finance system, but I am definitely not going let perfect kill the good. if Obama is serious about usuing small dollar donors, and this suggests he is, then it's not perfect, but its not the worse either.

akaison's panties have apparently bunched

apparently people don't know that akaison is actually the japanese word for red (which probably explains the need to assume my gender- you aren't the first to do so when arguing with me) or that i am a guy.

Tyro,

You seem to just enjoy having Obama con you. You ask how he lied, admitting your utter lack of intelligence and understanding.

Here are Obamas lies:

http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_Obama/ObamaLies.htm

In addition, he is conning the ignorant…of which you are apparently one.

He claims John MCCain won’t stop the 527s, but OMITS that he won’t either, BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL

FOR HIM OR MCCAIN TO COORDINATE WITH THE 527s.

Of course now that he opted out, Obama is free to get in bed with Soros and the rest.

He further lies by making ludicrous claims like: "I don't take money from oil companies."

The law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn't distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

Obama lies by OMMISSION because he takes advantage of your ignorance in that he, has accepted more than $213,000 from big wigs who work for the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

In fact, two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

Some just enjoy being conned.

Obama has ended any chance for public campaign financing for decades. He has truly shown that he believs the private sector does things best. From educating his children to running our federal campaigns, private is best.

This allows for bundling from corporate fatcats and is politics as usual.

Please do point provide us with the evidence that Obama is beholden to "corporate fatcats" who have "bundled" money for him. The fact is he has raised several hundred million bucks from the smallish donations of millions of ordinary citizens.

Now such issues are cast off by Obama's supporters just as 'conservative' principles were cast aside by Bushistas.

Well, being something of a stickler for free speech, I've never been a supporter of campaign finance so-called reform, so I'm delighted if it ultimately turns out to be a good liberal Democrat who brings the whole system crashing down. Good riddance to bad rubbish, say I.

Public financing is millions of Americans and is the only way to keep big money from buying pols...

Again, that pretty much sums up the way Senator Obama is funding his quest for the White House.

Obama lies by OMMISSION because he takes advantage of your ignorance in that he, has accepted more than $213,000 from big wigs who work for the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

Which is less than one one-thousandth of the money he has raised. Do you seriously think any American politician can be bought for such a trifling sum? Indeed a lot of good it does them, since Obama has come out in favor of increasing taxes on energy companies.

Jasper you are making several strawmen arguments:

a) You are treating organizations as individuals. One can believe in free speech, and, still question whether a legal fiction like a corporation deserves the same level of free speech as real people.

b) Something you don't mention, but I want to touch on. When I bring up the FCC enforcing rules requiring broadcasters to provide free air time to candidates, one of the oft cited reasons why not is free speech. First, the argument is false on its face since although yes there is free speech, that speech is limited by the license that the public gives to the broadcasters on what are the public's airwaves. Second, by couching it as simply a matter of speech it dishonestly ignores that we aren't dealing with real people here. We are dealing with companies.

I am not arguing no free speech here, but I am arguing different levels of speech. There is no absolute right to speech such that we don't balance that right against other rights and issues. "Fighting words" for example aren't allowed.

Your contruction of free speech is at best simplistic.

akaison:

You are treating organizations as individuals.

No I'm not. I'm well aware that corporations, for instance, have been barred from contributing to political campaigns for a century. I regard this rule as a common sense business regulation, and have no desire to see it changed. I am, of course, sympathetic to the free speech rights of ideological groups (Sierra Club, NRA, CPUSA, etc.), and one reason is that such groups can help to equalize the size of the megaphones owned by the rich and non-rich. I may not have as much money as Bill Gates, but when I join forces with eight million other like-minded citizens, the playing field becomes a lot more even.

First, the argument is false on its face since although yes there is free speech, that speech is limited by the license that the public gives to the broadcasters on what are the public's airwaves.

You're not successfully arguing that "free speech" is limited. What you're really arguing is that the capacity to make free speech heard is limited. On that I agree. But broadcast media aren't unique in this regard because of the limits of electronic spectrum. In reality, ALL means of disseminating free speech are limited by economics. I think you'll find that Politician XYZ's ability to reach the voters via print ads is likewise limited, by the unfortunate fact that dead trees are expensive, and newspapers and magazines charge dearly for them.

If you think NBC and Fox ought to give the government ad spots for distribution to politicians, you must logically believe Esquire and The New York Times ought to be forced to do the same. I'd much rather let the market decide. Politicians who are popular and who inspire people will naturally be able to raise more money, and do more advertising, than less popular politicians who are less inspiring. What's wrong with that? We're seeing this process play out right now in this year's presidential election. Why would anybody deem it a good idea for the government to use tax money to cancel out the advantage a particular candidate has earned fair and square, by competing fiercely in the marketplace of ideas? This dirigiste approach to politics strikes as particularly unwise, and undemocratic.

This vast effort aimed at making sure "both sides" in political contests possess equal resources strikes me as a very bad, very undemocratic idea. Some (most, I'd bet) times, there ought to exist a disparity in resources between two sides in a political debate, because one side is more persuasive, or more honest, or more credible, or whatever.

There is no absolute right to speech such that we don't balance that right against other rights and issues. "Fighting words" for example aren't allowed.

You're right of course, and I'm not arguing otherwise. What I am arguing is that political speech ought to be a heck of a lot more "absolute" than just about any other kind. The ability to advocate and advance one's political ideology is at the heart of the First Amendment in a way yelling "fire" in a crowded theater most certainly is not.

Barry and Michello cannot send their darling daughters to a Chicago Public School--they're full of scary black people!

no because the airwaves are owned by the public, but esquire is not. i believe this requires them to allow for the most sacred of speech - political speech - to be free since we are essense already given them a bargain with their license. for them to request money to cover advertisment is allowing them to double dip into the government.

...for them to request money to cover advertisment is allowing them to double dip into the government.

Huh? That's how the networks make money. Is it double dipping when CBS sells spots to GM or Microsoft? Are you suggesting we do away with private electronic media?

You are making specious arguments. Are you saying that you don't see the difference in kind of the examples you are giving versus the narrow exception that I tailored for a very specific class? ie, you don't see the difference between GM and a candidate for the presidency of the US. The speciousness of the argument is that you take what is a narrowly defined idea based on public airwaves, and therefore, political advertisement for candidates being free, and changing it to "well now you are sayign all actors can have free advertisement." In a slippery slope way that argument may make sense, but in actual real terms they don't.

akaison, McCain doesn't control the 527s anymore than Obama does. That's a false condition, and you know it. If McCain or Obama did have the power to restrict what any 527 group does, that would ipso facto be a violation of the law. So ObaMessiah claiming that as a reason to eschew public financing is ingenuous at best, and downright duplicitous in fact.