Money for Nothing

A friend points out to me that both John McCain and Barack Obama have agreed to accept matching funds and abide by spending limits for the general election if their opponent also agrees to do so. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has made no such pledge. If you're a hard-core campaign finance reformer I guess this is a reason to support Obama. But if you're a normal person, it looks like a strategic mistake on Obama's part; he'd seem to be forfeiting a potentially large financial advantage.

This gets especially problematic when you think about the intervention of outside groups. It's fairly easy for, say, a group of insurance companies to just decide to each pony up some cash and run ads attacking a candidate who they think is bad for their interests. By contrast, it's hard to see Obama's small- and mid-sized donor base spontaneously organizing itself into a viable independent expenditure group.

Comments

A Hillary candidacy would allow McCain to play up his campaign finance reform bonfides such that it becomes an issue even for normal people.

Posted by Mike | February 4, 2008 3:38 PM

So I'm wasting my donations to MoveOn?

Posted by Ken | February 4, 2008 3:39 PM

So I'm wasting my donations to MoveOn?

Posted by Ken | February 4, 2008 3:41 PM

No, no, no. Team Obama looked into the option nearly a year ago (that is, can they take GE money in the primary but give it back if they decide to take matching funds). However, they made it clear they were NOT committing to accept matching funds. They said they would make the decision once they got the nomination. I think it's clear Obama will not give up the huge financial advantage he has with low-dollar donors.

Posted by evie | February 4, 2008 3:41 PM

MoveOn has a 527, so there's that. One of the reasons Fox loves to demonize them so...

McCain of course is completely screwed because he's taking matching funds in the PRIMARY, which means he has to go dark really soon.

Posted by dbt | February 4, 2008 3:44 PM

Obama will break his pledge.

Posted by ken | February 4, 2008 3:52 PM

Hmmm..something doesn't jive. Let's stipulate that Obama's a smart politician and also a formidable fundraising machine. If you're framing the issue correctly, MY, one of the two stipulations must be wrong, no?

Posted by Adi | February 4, 2008 3:53 PM

Not really. The General Election campaign will be short for both parties...the DNC is the last week in August...the RNC is the week following. That means you've only got 2 months to spend money (Sept. and Oct.) for both candidates. It's not like years past when one convention was much earlier. I doubt that fundraising would be a significant advantange in such a short timeframe. It's not like Obama wouldn't spend a zillion dollars in the runup to Septemeber on groundwork, etc.

Posted by rashomon | February 4, 2008 3:56 PM

If it is true that both have agreed to take matching funds and spending limits if their opponent does, and they both end up as the candidates, then they have both agreed to .... nothing.

They have also both said in essence (taking your statement at face value), that they will not necessarily commit to matching funds unless their opponent has committed. Neither has committed, so neither must commit.

Posted by Ben V-L | February 4, 2008 3:56 PM

Evie, I might be confused, but can you explain how your comment is consistent with this?

Posted by washerdreyer | February 4, 2008 3:59 PM

But if you're a normal person, it looks like a strategic mistake on Obama's part; he'd seem to be forfeiting a potentially large financial advantage.

Absent a Hillary Clinton for donors to rally against, John McCain will not receive a sizable amount of donations for a Presidential candidacy. The full spectrum of conservative opinion on Obama, the man, is neutral to positive. McCain: lukewarm to negative. Obama would receive a sizable edge in money regardless of restrictions.

Posted by Shinyk | February 4, 2008 4:07 PM

If it is true that both have agreed to take matching funds and spending limits if their opponent does, and they both end up as the candidates, then they have both agreed to .... nothing. - Ben V-L

If McCain starts spending beyond limits, the media will either ignore it or laud him for being a clever, independent thinker and maverick who doesn't get bogged down by pointless rules but who knows how to work around constraints.

If Obama does so, OTOH, the media will make snickering, snide remarks about "Obama has decided to transcend the rules to which he agreed", etc., and if he points out what you point out, the commentariat will be making fun of Obama for following in Clinton's tradition of "arguing what the definition of 'is' is". Other than re-enforcing the "if you elect a Dem, the happy days of Clinton's terms will be here again" mindset, the snickering wouldn't be good for Obama.

What you say Ben V-L is logically true, but as far as the MSM is concerned IOKIYAR, and only under that circumstance.

Posted by DAS | February 4, 2008 4:11 PM

Romney has outspent McCain, what, ten to one? Ron Paul's got blimp-rental money and never moved up much, far as I can tell.

Money is a lot, but it isn't everything, and Obama doesn't want to win because he outspent his opposition, or to have pundits saying he won because he outspent the opposition.

I guess I'm a hard-core campaign reformer, but I can't understand why anyone would think there isn't already more than enough money spent campaigning. Personally, I think it's a breath of fresh air.

Posted by Jen | February 4, 2008 4:13 PM

Another thought...could we maybe send Obama money that would otherwise be used to make the 1,000,000th political ad, and just have him keep the money instead for a really great inauguration party? An open bar, Black Eyed Peas kind of inauguration party?

Posted by jen | February 4, 2008 4:17 PM

I'm going against the conventional wisdom here, but I would argue that money spent in the general election has a very low rate of return. Its importance is overblown.

Posted by Robert | February 4, 2008 4:26 PM

Ben:

then they have both agreed to .... nothing.

Actually both agreed not to nothing, but to take matching funds and spending limits if their opponent does.

Ben, why wouldn't Hillary pledge that if it means nothing? Does she only do pledges she'll break, like the ones about Florida and Michigan?

Actually I'm beginning to think that there is a fair bit of difference between Obama and Hillary. This instance being one of them.

The NYTimes today had a list of celebrity and politician supporters for each of the candidates:

Obama's backed by Scarlett Johansson and Larry David!

As the crowd at the Meadowlands awaited Mr. Obama’s arrival, Mr. De Niro made a surprise appearance and received a thunderous welcome. Mr. De Niro said he’d never before made a political speech, and the actor made a special appeal to the young people and first-time voters, saying that Mr. Obama gave them someone to gather behind.

“You wanted to vote, you just didn’t have anyone to vote for,” he said. ” Well you know what? I felt the same way. Until now.”
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/empty-seats-but-spirit-of-upset-at-obama-rally-at-meadowlands/

That's how I feel.

Posted by Peter K. | February 4, 2008 4:31 PM

What Robert said. And just to tack on a little more contrarianism . . . A big part of McCain's "maverick" appeal seems to be his leadership on campaign finance reform. And the Republican primary has seen a flat broke McCain surmount several well-funded opponents. Taking the matching funds probably defuses the role of money as a campaign issue.

Posted by southpaw | February 4, 2008 4:35 PM

Obama' inaugeration bash will be huge. I know Common's been campaigning for him. No doubt a lot of bands will play for free.

Posted by Peter K. | February 4, 2008 4:36 PM

Obama's inaugeration bash will be huge. I know Common has been campaigning for him. No doubt a lot of bands will play for free.

Posted by Peter K. | February 4, 2008 4:38 PM

bob bauer, who drafted the request for an fec advisory opinion on this topic for obama has a blog--soft money hard law--that is worth a look. if the candidates are serious about reforming the political system (both obama and mccain are dialing up the rhetoric on this topic), then what better place to start than in the general. why pundits may have no influence, pols do, and if obama AND mccain talk about the need for fed funded campaigns then it may create some momentum for bipartisan reform in congress. before concluding that it is not necessary read bauer's blog. it might offer a romney or a bloomberg an opening if both the party candidates lock themselves down in this way. as for obama's strategy, you have to be kidding if you think republicans won't open their checkbooks after a nominee is picked on the republican side. people keep playing obama as some kind of fool, and yet look at what he was able to do in just a year.

Posted by JC | February 4, 2008 4:51 PM

You are really so full of it Matt

so Move On, Labor Unions, George Soros, Hollywood, you will concede that none of them can muster the kind of money business can? What about democrats on Wall Street - Bob Rubin, John Corzine - is the left a bunch of school teachers, ceramicists and bloggers?

Being a left/liberal means constantly denying reality. It is ironic that you colleague (leftist) Andrew Sullivan blogs under Orwell's quote, I guess it is ironic since being a leftist in 2008 requires constant denial of reality

Posted by Jozef | February 4, 2008 5:17 PM

Cue the whining about how this shows Obama's not "ready" and Krugman-esque rants about how this would be the end of days.

Posted by David B. | February 4, 2008 5:35 PM

If Obama's the nominee, I'm praying Obama breaks the pledge. God help us if he doesn't.

Posted by DemUnity08 | February 4, 2008 5:39 PM

I think that MoveOn, and sites like DailyKos, MyDD, and Open Left will easily be able to keep the money game close. It would actually be useful to have such a situation force our organizations to continue to mature into a better machine.

Posted by JWill | February 4, 2008 6:27 PM

I'm assuming Obama's not a retard, and so he'll break the pledge.

Posted by Korha | February 4, 2008 7:01 PM

By contrast, it's hard to see Obama's small- and mid-sized donor base spontaneously organizing itself into a viable independent expenditure group.

Obama just has to agree to reinstate the gold standard and then he will suddenly find a bunch of people who would be good at this.

Ron Paul's got blimp-rental money and never moved up much, far as I can tell.

Actually, he's moved up quite a bit, compared to where he was last summer. And he has done far better than other candidates of the same magnitude (e.g. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo).

Money has done quite a bit for Ron Paul. What it hasn't done is performed a miracle.

Posted by Glaivester | February 4, 2008 8:29 PM

Peter K, there were two if's conditioning my conclusion. If they had both agreed to take matching funds, and Obama would end up against a candidate who DID take matching funds, then he would have agreed to take matching funds.

That wasn't the scenario I described.

Posted by Ben V-L | February 4, 2008 8:51 PM

I'm not an expert, but is this a fair summary of the above comments.

1. Obama's promise, on its face, does not kick in until the Denver Convention, so he can spend his massive war chest to lay the groundword pre-Denver.

2. He will keep the promise for the three months that constitute the general election.

My question is, if McCain is getting massive 527 support from sleazy groups and McCain, after a decent interval, can't get them to stop, can Obama declare the truce is off? That would give Obama leverage against the really bad 527's (like swiftboaters). They would know that if they did not cease and desist, their preferred candidate's financial advantage would evaporate.

Posted by RaymondA | February 4, 2008 10:33 PM

" It's fairly easy for, say, a group of insurance companies to just decide to each pony up some cash and run ads attacking a candidate who they think is bad for their interests"

From that logic and using the amount the insurance industry has donated to each candidates campaign:
-----------------------------
#4 - Clinton, Hillary (D): $525,188

#5 - Obama, Barack (D): $414,863

#6 - McCain, John (R): $274,724

http://opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=F09&cycle=2008

Posted by volum | February 4, 2008 11:12 PM

"Money is a lot, but it isn't everything"

Very true. We are media-saturated enough that a lot of it gets out. The problem is that that media saturation includes spin from mental lepers like Chris Matthews (Mr. Delay called me first about resigning cuz I am teh awesome) and everyone on FoxNews. I am, 75 years ago we would not have found out about the killing of the Buddhist monks in Burma in real time.

Posted by Reality Man | February 5, 2008 2:02 AM