Campaign Finance Stuff

Obviously, it's somewhat hypocritical for Barack Obama to have implied that he would accept public financing in the general election and then back out of that once it became clear that he could get more money by not doing so. John McCain, by contrast, is just straightforwardly breaking the law on this issue. Which doesn't make Obama's gambit un-hypocritical, but it shows that if you're voting on the basis of "doesn't play funny games with campaign finance law" you should back Obama.

Clearly there's a larger issue with our campaign finance system here, and the past couple of decades worth of reforms seem to have mostly made things worse rather than better. I think Mark Schmitt's article on "Small Donor Democracy" points the way forward to a better tomorrow.

Comments

If McCain is really straightforwardly breaking the law, then I actually do not think what Obama is doing is hypocritical. I would call it an extenuating circumstance, in that Obama said he would accept public financing in the context of his opponent doing the same, with the implication being that his opponent was doing so in good faith. If McCain has already broken the law on this, then Obama should not be held to this.

Posted by Jim W | June 20, 2008 10:32 AM

How long 'til Ambinder writes a post that excuses McCain's lawbreaking and slams Obama for not being a straighttalker?

Posted by tinisoli | June 20, 2008 10:38 AM

And let's not forget McCain's outright refusal to try to reign in 527 money. Obama has clearly and blatantly asked that his supporters not fund these organizations. McCain refused to do the same.

Let's also not forget the sweet loophole in the campaign finance law concerning airplane charter rates that McCain slipped in for himself. Obama would have to pay going rates, but because McCain is married to Cindy, he can use her company's plane on the cheap.

McCain is Hillary. His interpretation changes with whatever suits his campaign best. Obama said he'd negotiate in good faith, but McCain is already breaking both the law and the spirit of campaign finance reform, winking at the Swift Boat style 527s, and is using a loophole he put in that just happens to benefit him.

Obama made the right move. You can't honestly negotiate with somebody who is fundamentally dishonest.

Posted by LFC | June 20, 2008 10:38 AM

"Somewhat"?

He lied.

And, no, McCain isn't breaking the law.

How come no one has noticed that Barry is running a Rovian campaign?

Posted by Thomas | June 20, 2008 10:42 AM

I am no supporter of Obama, but I don't see anything more conservative than a candidate not taking public money to fund his campaign. This will probably speak to small government libertarians, as well as some small c conservatives in a way that will resonate. This is not a winning issue for McCain, and he needs to find something else quickly.

Posted by Sean | June 20, 2008 10:43 AM

And, no, McCain isn't breaking the law.

The Republican who heads the FEC disagrees. I think I'll take view his opinion as a bit more informed than yours, Thomas.

Posted by LFC | June 20, 2008 10:44 AM

And, no, McCain isn't breaking the law.

Brilliant argument. You've convinced me!

How come no one has noticed that Barry is running a Rovian campaign?

I hope you're right. The Republicans need to be squashed like the bugs they are.

Posted by Jim W | June 20, 2008 10:45 AM

If Obama was taking PAC money for the general, then I could see the hypocrisy charge. Taking money only from the millions of small donors who funded his primary campaign? Not so much.

Posted by Ron | June 20, 2008 10:47 AM

You people are pathetic. Such cheap dates, ready to excuse each and every lie from the Obamamessiah pie hole.

But if it results in the acquisition of power, then it's OK. The same game you accuse R's of playing. Face it--you are no different from the people you loathe.

So self-loathers, can you make pathetic excuses every time he lies?

YES WE CAN!

At least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that Obama does not represent and will not implement a hopey changey future. He's a corrupt, lying politician, just like all the rest.

Posted by Big Fat Al Gore | June 20, 2008 10:49 AM

Jim W, you found Matt's assertio persuasive, but not mine? Surprise.

Posted by Thomas | June 20, 2008 10:52 AM

I guess it was too much to ask for Matt to actually give an honest answer. I guess this is what you can expect from someone who hopes Obama violates FISA just to get back and Republicans.

Posted by Dave | June 20, 2008 10:54 AM

How long 'til Ambinder writes a post that excuses McCain's lawbreaking and slams Obama for not being a straighttalker?

Posted by tinisoli | June 20, 2008 10:38 AM

I am sure he has already written that post or that post can be inferred. I don't have the time or will to search is posts, but I would bet he has a separate post excusing away McCain's lawbreaking somewhere in there. And now he has his, when did Obama stop beating his wife poll.

Posted by debrazza | June 20, 2008 10:59 AM

Maybe it has that ring of truthiness rather than good old fashioned truth in full, but I think Obama is on pretty solid ground saying that his operation has achieved what the public financing system had hoped to achieve--a candidate who was not tied to the phone or to fundraising events and a candidate with so much money from small donors that the influence of the fat cats is diminished and the participation of regular people is augmented.

True, his campaign looked much different when he said what he said about public financing, but to the extent that public financing is a system that comes from the first principles mentioned above, I think he is solidly in line with those principles to break with the system in a non-hypocritical way.

Posted by michael | June 20, 2008 11:01 AM

What Ron said. Look, what's the intent of public financing in the first place? Is the outcome that's being sought by these measures simply just participation? Are we only looking for politicians to play ball for its own sake? I think if Obama's collecting money from millions of tiny donors, that's pretty much accomplishing the same thing as public financing, especially since he has tried to discourage PAC donations.

Or maybe the desired outcome is less money spent on campaigns. But if that were truly the case, we'd mandate that no one can spend more than $5,000 or something.

Posted by Brent | June 20, 2008 11:02 AM

Thomas,

Apparantly you dont; understand what the blue text means on the internet. You simply stated that McCain isn't breaking the law with no supporting evidence. Matt linked to a long piece by Josh Marshall that explains how he is breakign the law.

And as was pointed out about the Republican head of the FEC also thinks that McCain is breaking the law.

If you are the best troll the right is sending out today it must be slim pickings at VRWC Headquarters.

Posted by eric k | June 20, 2008 11:03 AM

How long 'til Ambinder writes a post that excuses McCain's lawbreaking and slams Obama for not being a straighttalker?

Posted by tinisoli | June 20, 2008 10:38 AM

I am sure he has already written that post or that post can be inferred. I don't have the time or will to search is posts, but I would bet he has a separate post excusing away McCain's lawbreaking somewhere in there. And now he has his, when did Obama stop beating his wife poll.

Posted by debrazza | June 20, 2008 11:04 AM

Matt, you're blithely ignoring the other issue here - that Obama is lying to the public about why he opted out of the system (to raise more $$ than McCain). So he isn't being hypocritical, he's just being dishonest.

Posted by John | June 20, 2008 11:04 AM

He's a corrupt, lying politician, just like all the rest.

Aaaaaah, that didn't take long. It's the classic Republican fail-safe defense. "Yeah, our party has had a pile of corrupt Congressmen, our president is an idiot, our v-p has pushed through some of the most destructive foreign and domestic policies of the last half century, we broke the budget, we're floundering in two wars, and our current candidate is breaking the very campaign finance law he sponsored as well as flip-flopping like a salmon on the deck about just about every issue, but your guy broke a promise so he's 'just like all the rest.'" BWAHAHAHAHA!

Welcome to the real world, boys. Yes, Obama is a politician. No, he's not the second coming. No, he's not perfect. (For some reason, Republican who defend their outrageously flawed politicians to the hilt seem to demand perfection from Democrats. Interesting.)

And no, Obama won't self destruct for the benefit of your candidate.

Man, when did the GOP go from the winning party to the WHINING party?

Posted by LFC | June 20, 2008 11:05 AM

Matt, you're blithely ignoring the other issue here - that Obama is lying to the public about why he opted out of the system (to raise more $$ than McCain). So he isn't being hypocritical, he's just being dishonest.

Posted by John | June 20, 2008 11:16 AM

Oh yes, LFC, it is the non-Obama types who know nothing about the real world.

In your world, pointing out hypocricy = whining. Right. You've done nothing but whine for 8 years.

And I should know about hypocricy.

I am, after all, the extraordinary carbon emitter who buys offsets from my own company to convince retards like you that I am carbon neutral.

I am Big Fat Al Gore.

Posted by Big Fat Al Gore | June 20, 2008 11:18 AM

Jim W, you found Matt's assertio persuasive, but not mine? Surprise.

No, I didn't, although at least Matt included a link which presumably contians supporting evidence. As for what I said, note the function of the word "If" in my original comment.

Posted by Jim W | June 20, 2008 11:18 AM

eric, I try not to read anything from Josh, since he's a bigger whore than Matt, and needs to be, what with his media empire ambitions. But in any case Josh's post doesn't exactly makes Josh's case: "The most generous interpretation of what happened is that McCain's lawyer came up with an ingenious legal two step that allowed him to double dip in the campaign finance system, eat his cake and spend it too. But even if you buy that line, successful gaming of the system doesn't really count as strict adherence." And saying that some Republican somewhere--at the FEC or anywhere else--disagrees doesn't change the analysis.

Posted by Thomas | June 20, 2008 11:20 AM

the public financing system is optional. so why on earth does anyone care if he's opting in or out, except in the context of his pledge with McCain? - the pledge which McCain has already violated.

but, yes, please continue to push the issue, wingnuts. it will help McCain immensely when his lawbreaking becomes widely known.

Posted by cleek | June 20, 2008 11:24 AM

Apparantly you dont; understand what the blue text means on the internet.

Thomas is aware of all internet traditions.

Posted by SavageView | June 20, 2008 11:25 AM

Shorter Big Fat Al Gore: "WAAAAAAAAAH!"

You've done nothing but whine for 8 years.

Of course, the outcome of the last 8 years shows that just about anybody complaining about the GOP during that time was completely and totally justified. Trillions of debt, a weak economy, sky high gas prices, 4,000+ dead troops, losses in Afghanistan, rampant corruption, etc. don't lie. OOPSIE! Must suck to have to defend that.

BTW, "pointing out hypocrisy" is hypocritical if you choose to ignore your own candidate's abysmal record on the topic. Yes, Obama took the route that was better for his campaign, but he did so AFTER McCain had already done so multiple times and continues to do so. (And Obama doesn't have a Republican FEC official telling him he's breaking the law.)

With McCain riding the Double Talk Express for all it's worth, it would just plain stupid for Obama to unilaterally disarm. That's not what you do in negotiations. Oh, that's right. Negotiations are for the naive. McCain said so.

Posted by LFC | June 20, 2008 11:31 AM

Just how is McCain breaking any laws? None of this is explained, of course, except that TPM says it's so, and therefore the reneger Obama is okay to break his promise.

The Lunatic Left has no ethics or moral code, just a snatch-and-grab heist on the public treasury in progress.

Obama complains about the "Republican Attack Machine" while the MSM serves as the "Democrat Attack Machine."

Posted by daveinboca | June 20, 2008 11:40 AM

Just how is McCain breaking any laws? None of this is explained, of course, except that TPM says it's so, and therefore the reneger Obama is okay to break his promise.

Change the subject while Obama gets away with another lie.

The Lunatic Left has no ethics or moral code, just a snatch-and-grab heist on the public treasury in progress.

Obama complains about the "Republican Attack Machine" while the MSM serves as the "Democrat Attack Machine."

Posted by daveinboca | June 20, 2008 11:41 AM

Shorter LFC: Obama and his supporters are hypocrites and we know it, but won't admit it. But we're doing this to obtain power, so the ends justify the means.

We loathe the R's but we know we're the same as them, but can't admit that either. Self-loathing sucks, so we'll try to justify our hypocricy by convincing ourselves that it's better if we have power than if they do.

Posted by Big Fat Al Gore | June 20, 2008 11:42 AM

The most generous interpretation of what happened is that McCain's lawyer came up with an ingenious legal two step that allowed him to double dip in the campaign finance system, eat his cake and spend it too.

LOL WUT

Obama said he would opt in to public financing if his opponent did the same. McCain, if not outright opting out of the framework, is abusing and exploiting the very system he considers to be an integral element of his maverick, bipartisan persona. Yet considering this, you believe Obama to be acting in bad faith.

G'luck with that.

Posted by really? | June 20, 2008 11:44 AM

Burton said that while Obama had essentially shut down fundraising for Progressive Media USA, which aspired to be a major anti-McCain media voice, McCain had sent no such clear signal to GOP 527s.

Say what ? You mean there is coordination between the Obama campaign and the “independent 527” Progressive Media USA. Isn’t that illegal ?

Maybe that explains why McCain “sent no such clear signal.”

Normally I would wonder what the FEC would have to say about that .. but due to a political tactics up in the Democrat controlled (most ethical) Congress (in history), the FEC is undermanned at the moment .. rendering it useless.

Posted by Neo | June 20, 2008 11:45 AM

awsm, the GOP ranks have been thinned to the point where the only people left are whiny little crybabies.

Posted by cleek | June 20, 2008 11:48 AM

Matt, it's not just about money. It's about collecting it from millions of small donors, thus accomplishing the goal of public financing more effectively than using the flawed public system would. Where's the hypocrisy (especially since the initial "pledge" -- which of course was no such thing -- was conditional on the cooperation of McCain, who has already violated at the very least the spirit of the law he himself sponsored)?

By all means hit Obama for his lack of leadership on FISA, or any number of other things, but it's silly to embrace this charge hypocrisy on public financing.

Posted by KCinDC | June 20, 2008 11:54 AM

Partisan bickering aside, the argument that Obama's small donor network replaces the need for public funding is bunk. 68% of Obama's 2007 funds leading up to his critical win in Iowa were from $200-plus contributions, and a full one-third of that money was from maxed-out $2,300 contributions (PDF - http://www.cfinst.org/president/pdf/Pres08_YE_Table2.pdf).

Other presidential candidates, and probably more importantly, congressional candidates are relying on large donors more than they ever have before (http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=190). It's great that Obama's causing such small-donor enthusiasm, but he is the exception to the rule.

The presidential funding system is archaic in that it needs to be updated (especially in the primaries), but not in the sense that it can't serve its purpose. It has actually been remarkably effective since 1976. Challengers have beaten incumbents 3 out of 6 times since its inception, and it's been credited for helping Reagan and Clinton get elected.

Posted by Matt | June 20, 2008 11:57 AM

Big Fat Al,

...so we'll try to justify our hypocricy...

Try using a browser that will highlight your misspelled words. That way you'll look slightly less stupid when you trot out your tired "Al Gore respires, therefore he's a hypocrite!" arguments.

Better yet, why not just show up once a day, write "MANBEARPIG" a few hundred times in a single comment, and leave it at that? It's much more concise, and we'll know exactly what you mean and where you're coming from and the type of intellectual "honesty" you believe in.

Posted by tinisoli | June 20, 2008 12:00 PM

Obama = flat out liar. Simple as that.

Now, it is no surprise the the left-wing loves a flat out liar. They always have and always will, because the left is hungry for power and is willing to do anything to get it.

Barack "Liar" Obama. It catchy!

Posted by Al | June 20, 2008 12:02 PM

Partisan bickering aside, the argument that Obama's small donor network replaces the need for public funding is bunk. 68% of Obama's 2007 funds leading up to his critical win in Iowa were from $200-plus contributions, and a full one-third of that money was from maxed-out $2,300 contributions (PDF - http://www.cfinst.org/president/pdf/Pres08_YE_Table2.pdf).

Other presidential candidates, and probably more importantly, congressional candidates are relying on large donors more than they ever have before (http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=190). It's great that Obama's causing such small-donor enthusiasm, but he is the exception to the rule.

The presidential funding system is archaic in that it needs to be updated (especially in the primaries), but not in the sense that it can't serve its purpose. It has actually been remarkably effective since 1976. Challengers have beaten incumbents 3 out of 6 times since its inception, and it's been credited for helping Reagan and Clinton get elected.

Posted by Matt S | June 20, 2008 12:03 PM

Instead of one established paid troll, RNC HQ appears to have sent this thread Huey, Dewey and Louie Troll.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 20, 2008 12:06 PM

Matt, you are right that it does not replace the need for public financing for all candidates, but Obama's special case allows him to opt out and be in line with the intentions of that system.

Posted by michael | June 20, 2008 12:06 PM

We loathe the R's but we know we're the same as them, but can't admit that either.

I can't speak for others, but personally I'm a fiscal conservative. I'm also a foreign policy conservative. That makes it impossible for me to be belong to the Republican Party any more, since it is neither.

Posted by LFC | June 20, 2008 12:07 PM

"Just how is McCain breaking any laws? None of this is explained, of course, except that TPM says it's so, and therefore the reneger Obama is okay to break his promise."

Since you apparently can't be bothered to actually read the link, here's what he did. At a point when his campaign was out of money, he went to a bank for a loan. The bank agreed to give him the loan only if he accepted public money which would ensure that he could pay the loan back. He agreed and accepted the public money and the loan. Before he actually spent any of the public money, he did well in a couple of primaries (and the rest of the Republicans imploded) so his fund raising picked up. At that point he reversed his agreement to accept public funds so that he could spend more money than allowed under the rules for public funds. The Federal Election Commission currently doesn't have a quorum of members so it can't make an official ruling but the Republican chair said that McCain was breaking the law. Does that clear things up?

Posted by Buzz79 | June 20, 2008 12:08 PM

Try using a browser that will highlight your misspelled words.

It's pretty humorous to complain about a commenter's spelling on this blog, of all places.

Posted by Al | June 20, 2008 12:09 PM

The bank agreed to give him the loan only if he accepted public money which would ensure that he could pay the loan back.

This is, of course, completely false. The loan specifically excluded using the public money as collateral.

Posted by Al | June 20, 2008 12:11 PM

Say what ? You mean there is coordination between the Obama campaign and the “independent 527” Progressive Media USA. Isn’t that illegal ?

Obama told people not to give money to Progressive Media USA. That's, like, the opposite of coordination.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 20, 2008 12:16 PM

" ."

-- This is the sound of America not caring about process stories in June.

Posted by David B. | June 20, 2008 12:21 PM

the Republican chair said that McCain was breaking the law

This is also a lie. Nowhere has David Mason said that McCain was breaking any law. You can read Mason's letter right here.

Posted by Al | June 20, 2008 12:23 PM

Barack "Liar" Obama. It catchy!

"It catchy?" An ebonics lesson from a GOP troll? That's interesting. A little Freudian slip to go with the White House button maybe?

I have a suggestion. How about John "Felon" McCain. It's catchy! Almost as catchy as Cindy McC**t!

Posted by LFC | June 20, 2008 12:24 PM

Then what was the collateral, Al?

Posted by Chet | June 20, 2008 1:04 PM

Then what was the collateral, Al?

All property of the campaign (including proceeds of a life insurance policy), EXCEPT the certification for matching funds, which was specifically excluded.

Posted by Al | June 20, 2008 1:28 PM

Ok, so how does checking yes on a survey about accepting campaign finance, a campaign pledge? I would have decided against it, too. It wasn't a promise, it was a question on a survey. Big freaking deal!

Posted by Rainy | June 20, 2008 1:33 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but Obama is accepting "public financing"...$29.50 per "public," via the internet, postal service and events/fundraisers. The spirit of the law is to reduce the influence of big money interests and spread it out among the individual citizens of the United States. Well, Barack Obama's campaign decision to not accept taxpayer money, but accept small donation from hundreds of thousands is exactly in keeping with the spirit of the law. He is beholden to the people, not the special interests. If his 2008 campaign had preceded the public financing legislation, the reform wouldn't have been neccessary, and the system never would have been established. Stop whining!

Posted by Cadmus | June 20, 2008 3:56 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but Obama is accepting "public financing"...$29.50 per "public," via the internet, postal service and events/fundraisers. The spirit of the law is to reduce the influence of big money interests and spread it out among the individual citizens of the United States. Well, Barack Obama's campaign decision to not accept taxpayer money, but accept small donation from hundreds of thousands is exactly in keeping with the spirit of the law. He is beholden to the people, not the special interests. If his 2008 campaign had preceded the public financing legislation, the reform wouldn't have been neccessary, and the system never would have been established. Stop whining!

Posted by Cadmus | June 20, 2008 3:58 PM

Al sez:

Nowhere has David Mason said that McCain was breaking any law. You can read Mason's letter right here.

This is true. However, McCain has blown past the legal primary limits on spending to qualify for public financing. As of March, McCain spent $58.4 million on his primary effort. Those who have committed to public financing can spend no more than $54 million on their primary bid.

So, how is it legal for him to now receive public financing?

Posted by Broken | June 20, 2008 5:36 PM

I'm surprised at how many "conservatives" are upset that a black man ISN'T on welfare.

Posted by Glaivester | June 20, 2008 6:35 PM

All property of the campaign (including proceeds of a life insurance policy)

Life insurance? Who had died?

Posted by Chet | June 20, 2008 6:38 PM