The Hypocrisy Of Change: Politics As Usual, Campaign Finance Style
Written by Adam Lasik
Monday, 23 June 2008
“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.”
–Barack Obama in response to a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire, released on Nov 27, 2007
In June 2008, Barack Obama reneged on that “novel” way to preserve the strength of the public financing system. And the reasons should be fairly obvious.
Obama has raised an obscene amount of money, far more than Republican candidate John McCain, who not only pledged to accept public financing and its limitations, but who is actually sticking to that pledge. With so much cash in the bank, it’s exceedingly difficult to conceive of giving much of it back rather than spending it in the effort to win the general election in November, not to mention that Democrats in general have a hard time giving money back to people.
Of course, Obama does not want to come out and admit the truth that he’s refusing public financing for greed and the desire to win. Rather, he made comments about needing to defend himself and accused Republicans of motivating 527 groups, or organizations that are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission. Nevermind that Democrat 527s have been remarkably aggressive and well-funded the last few elections.
In the 2004 election cycle, the top-twenty 527 groups included 15 Democratic/liberal leaning groups, and 5 Republican/conservative leaning groups. The Democratic 527s outraised the Republican groups to the tune of $358,420,519 to $85,619,418 (Source: Center for Responsive Politics). Clearly, the threat of 527 spending is hardly legitimate rationale for Obama’s decision.
The Baltimore Sun reports that Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, of the McCain/Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, believes that Obama’s decision to refuse public financing was “wrong.” Obama declared earlier in the week that the system is ‘broken,’ and Feingold agrees with that assessment. The system, according to Obama, has allowed McCain to run for the national election since February, and permits funding by lobbyists and political action committees, which the Democratic presumptive nominee declares have been fueling McCain’s campaign.. Obama adds that he has been “smeared” by the aforementioned 527 groups, and feels that he needs the money he has raised to combat those attacks.
And Obama is correct, to a point. McCain has been essentially unopposed since February, and PACs and lobbyists can contribute. What Obama fails to acknowledge is that McCain remained rather subdued during the throes of the Democratic primary battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton, and even now is only beginning to gear up for the national campaign. Obama himself has been just as, if not more active on the frontlines against the Republican candidate in the last two months.
Additionally, Obama conveniently overlooks the fact that his own 527 supporters have been dramatically more lavish in terms of advertising dollars targeted against McCain, and if the last several election cycles are any indication, will continue to significantly outspend their counterparts on the Republican/conservative side.
But what about PACs and lobbyists? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, thus far only 1% of McCain’s fundraising sources have been labeled as PAC contributions. The rest has come under the same “Individual” listing as all of Obama’s fundraising. So, yes, PACs can and are contributing to McCain, but they are not exactly the bankroll that Senator Obama would have the American people believe.
So why opt out? Why allege reasons for doing so that simply fall apart under just a cursory analysis?
Simply put, Obama is opting out of public financing not because it’s broken, and not because of any unfair advantage his opponent has had. Not because of 527 spending or lobbyists fueling the Republican campaign. No, Obama is opting out because it’s the politically expedient thing to do. Nevermind his notion of “novel,” and allegedly noble methods of running a campaign. He has more money than he could have dreamed possible a year and a half ago, and that money can be used to give him a decided advantage over his competition. When push comes to shove, it’s all about winning – integrity be damned.
There’s nothing new here. This is not change. This is not a “new kind of politician.” Barack Obama is a candidate who will do or say whatever he thinks it takes to win. And that is, you guessed it, Politics as Usual.
Obama's goal is to win the presidency of the US and he will do and say anything to reach that goal.
He has nothing to offer the American public but that commitment. His rejection of the "change" he once endorsed is a clear indication of what we will get from "President" Obama.
With no executive experience, we will get no leadership.
With the most liberal record in Congress we will take a giant step toward socialism and destroying the US Industrial Giant that has brought us prosperity.
And his focus on race will allow him to claim "racist" for every one of his proposals that persons of intelligence oppose.
"With the most liberal record in Congress we will take a giant step toward socialism and destroying the US Industrial Giant that has brought us prosperity."
Wow. That's paranoid -- and completely divorced from practical reality.
No politician in America today, not even the allegedly "most liberal senator," has any interest in establishing socialism or destroying the "US Industrial Giant."* That would be contrary to their own economic interests since all of our politicians are wealthy members of the ruling class.
BTW, our own corporate elite have done quite a good job already destroying the "US Industrial Giant" by shipping as many jobs as possible overseas, where life and labor are cheap. In case you haven't noticed, our economy isn't exactly doing all that well -- at least not for those of us who have to work for a living.
