The Irony of Reform

It's interesting that the result of not one but both major parties nominating presidential candidates known as process-oriented reformers has merely resulted in an usually large volume of campaign finance shenanigans -- from McCain illegally backing out of the system after having used public financing to secure a loan, to Obama wriggling out of a commitment to use public financing for the general election. I bet that two years ago, reformers would have told you that a McCain-Obama matchup would be great for their cause. In practice, it's turned out to be terrible.

And I think it's not a coincidence. McCain and Obama both feel they can take the hit on these issues in part because they're both branded as "reformers" and thus don't need to worry as much about being perceived as corrupt. Years ago, of course, McCain had a different reputation as a consequence of the Keating 5 business and became a reformer in part in order to change that reputation. But politicians who have the clean image can feel free to ditch process constraints whenever convenient.

Comments

The problem with this post is that it falls into the mainstream media trap of equating acts that are not in any way equal just for the sake of tarring both parties' houses.

...they're both branded as "reformers" and thus don't need to worry as much about being perceived as corrupt.

Of course, there is nothing actually corrupt about NOT taking public campaign financing. It as an option, and one that a candidate has chosen not to exercise. It is not mandatory, and there is nothing inherently corrupt about raising money from small donors.

McCain, on the other hand, broke the law, or at the very least skated pretty close to the edge.

Posted by jbryan | June 23, 2008 6:38 PM

Is that why Bush and Kerry were able to opt out of primary financing? Their reputation as reformers?

Posted by John DE | June 23, 2008 6:43 PM

When did Obama commit himself to using public financing?

Posted by blah | June 23, 2008 6:45 PM

Or it could just show why campaign finance restrictions are an exercise in futility, the hypocritical protestations of Obama and McCain notwithstanding.

Posted by jamie | June 23, 2008 6:55 PM

I agree with jbryan. What an incredibly stupid way to look at this issue. I'm interested in campaign finance reform but I'd never think that two candidates who both opt into public financing are "good for the cause" whatever the *&^ that means. There's so much more that goes into good government/public financing than just watching the democrat get beat every time because the soft money and the 527's favor the republican.

So, your first scenario is dumb: no sane person would have thought mccain/obama was "good" for campaign finance reform because it wasn't.

Second, your second point that Obama "promised" anythign is incorect. He observed that he might, under certain circumstances, negotiate something with the opposition candidate if he were negotiating in good faith. Since the start of this campaign anyone paying attention has to grasp that mccain is in no way negotiating in good faith. In fact, there is clearly nothing to stop mccain from trying to get obama to accept public financing and then not accepting it himself and busting the caps in every direction. since that is what he has already done in the primary there is every reason to believe he would go ahead and do so in the general.

There is simply nothing in this for obama or for any candidate because mccain is corrupt and can't be trusted. Why repeat the republican memes on this one?

aimai

Posted by aimai | June 23, 2008 6:57 PM

I agree with jbryan. What an incredibly stupid way to look at this issue. I'm interested in campaign finance reform but I'd never think that two candidates who both opt into public financing are "good for the cause" whatever the *&^ that means. There's so much more that goes into good government/public financing than just watching the democrat get beat every time because the soft money and the 527's favor the republican.

So, your first scenario is dumb: no sane person would have thought mccain/obama was "good" for campaign finance reform because it wasn't.

Second, your second point that Obama "promised" anythign is incorect. He observed that he might, under certain circumstances, negotiate something with the opposition candidate if he were negotiating in good faith. Since the start of this campaign anyone paying attention has to grasp that mccain is in no way negotiating in good faith. In fact, there is clearly nothing to stop mccain from trying to get obama to accept public financing and then not accepting it himself and busting the caps in every direction. since that is what he has already done in the primary there is every reason to believe he would go ahead and do so in the general.

There is simply nothing in this for obama or for any candidate because mccain is corrupt and can't be trusted. Why repeat the republican memes on this one?

aimai

Posted by aimai | June 23, 2008 6:57 PM

I bet that two years ago, reformers would have told you that a McCain-Obama matchup would be great for their cause. In practice, it's turned out to be terrible.

Meanwhile, other things we can file away in the "terrible for finance reform" department:
- one of the two major candidates pressuring his donors (successfully!) not to support the largely unregulated 527s
- one of the two candidates refusing to take money from federal registered lobbyists
- one of the two candidates getting his party apparatus to also reject lobbyist money
- both candidates promising to make further reform projects high priority once in office

Terrible.

Posted by jbryan | June 23, 2008 6:58 PM

McCain broke the law and--through false dealing--profited on the good credit of the American taxpayer. That's corruption--using a position of trust for dishonest gain.

Obama, at worst, arguably failed to honor a gratuitous promise to a special interest group (a promise, by the way, to "pursue aggressive negotiations with the Republican nominee" not to predetermine their outcome). That's being a politician, but not corruption and not a crime.

People should read Josh Marshall on this.

Posted by southpaw | June 23, 2008 7:02 PM

You could argue that the campaign finance system worked as it should have for Mr. Obama. It got the big money out and made little money, smaller donations more meaningful. I'm sure he was surprised how much a lot of little money could add up to.

Posted by Andrew Fly | June 23, 2008 7:25 PM

This is truly confusing form and substance. As others have noted, federally funded campaigns are hardly a good in themselves and, with the growth of various end-runs, hardly effective in keeping the corrupting influence of big-money out of the campaigns.

Its hard to see any corrupting influence of big-money on the Obama campaign. Accordingly, unless one is committed to a rather silly slippery slope argument (e.g., the NYT editorial page), it hard to see the harm in what he has done. Would I prefer my politicians be a more honest and forthright. Sure. I’d also like a pony.

This is not to say that Obama could not have done better to prepare the way for this decision. Perhaps we should have had a couple of weeks where the campaign talked about how it was going to have to walk away from public funding unless the McCain campaign somehow cured its prior violations of campaign finance laws by using public dollars (or the promise thereof) to secure a loan before exceeding applicable spending limits in the primaries. The Obama campaign could have also made hay about lobbyist money flowing into the RNC and the corrupting influence of 527s. I would have favored these steps because I think its important to do as much as possible to burst the myth about McCain being a reformer. In the end though, my only quibble with Obama on this issue (as opposed to FISA, for instance) is about tactics.

Posted by Sash | June 23, 2008 7:28 PM

Hmm? Saying you will meet with your opponent to try to reach an agreement, then NOT meeting with said opponent because:

1) He's breaking campaign finance laws and
2) He refuses to talk about ALL of the campaign delivery methjods (i.e. RNC, 527's)

... and not meeting with the law breaking unwilling to talk all issues guy equals "wriggling out of a commitment".

Is Rove writing your stuff these days? I expect that kind of bs spin from freepers and red staters.

Posted by Sam | June 23, 2008 7:47 PM

Public campaign finance is voluntary; therefore, it works no better than any other voluntary regulation. The bottom line is that Obama shouldn't take public money with strings, because he can raise more on his own. McCain, by contrast, has no choice but to sponge off the taxpayers because the Bush Pioneers don't like him very much.

Posted by Aatos | June 23, 2008 8:04 PM

I have long supported real public financing for elections. That's why I've never been impressed by what passes for "public financing" on the Presidential level, and that's why I'm completely not bothered by Obama's decision to skip that hokey system against a set of opponents dedicated to subvert any of its already weak provisions.

Posted by El Cid | June 23, 2008 8:45 PM

I think you are wrong about Obama 'wiggling' out of accepting public financce. I don't think he ever intended to accept public finance as the system now exists--I think his greatest reform was creating a new kind of public finance. So, in essence, he still is a reformer. For all of those people who feel he caved to the big money of private financing should just sit back and take a deep breath. If you were an Obama supporter before the announcement, you probably had decided to back him for a number of reasons--not because he was going to accept public financing. Trust him. He is a smart man who probably has a big plan--like adding another million individual donors to his donor list.

Posted by sjb | June 23, 2008 10:04 PM

Obama supporters, you are one naive group. The "chosen" one takes PAC and lobbyists money as much as McCain does. Groups from the Sierra Club, the Culinary Union, Teamsters and so on are PACS or they have lobbyists representing them in Congress.

Both sides do it. In return, these groups expect favors such as special legislation. Why do you think we have anti-trust laws?

Obama has a history of directing money to favorite groups or politicians that have backed him. We have his mentor Emil Jones Jr., who placed Obama's name as a co-sponsor on all these Illinois bills. He returns the favor with tens of millions of dollars in earmark pet projects for Jones's district.

We have foundation money going to ACORN when BO sat on foundation boards such as the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation. ACORN provided volunteers for Obama's campaigns including his Senate race.

One of his chief campaign fundraisers is John Rogers of Ariel Capital. Ariel was awarded the contract for the $112 million dollar Illinois Teachers' Retirement Fund. Luckily, Ariel lost the contract because they couldn't peform.

You have the audacity to talk about McCain breaking finance laws, when Obama is directing private and government funds to groups that have helped him. The employees from these firms have donated lots of money to his campaign.

Only half of the $265 million that Obama raised came from small Internet donors. Take a look at your candidate and follow the money.

Posted by EWard | June 23, 2008 10:05 PM

You have the audacity to talk about McCain breaking finance laws, when Obama is [yadayadayada]

yeah, how dare anyone point out lawbreaking by a presidential candidate... how audacious!

Posted by cleek | June 23, 2008 10:19 PM

Both sides do it. In return, these groups expect favors such as special legislation. Why do you think we have anti-trust laws?

The origin of anti-trust laws have absolutely nothing to do with campaign finance.

You have the audacity to talk about McCain breaking finance laws, when Obama is directing private and government funds to groups that have helped him.

We talk about McCain breaking the law because... McCain has broken the law. Obama has not. Earmarks are not illegal and government is always going to have a transactional nature to it whereby a politician works to fund the groups and issues that matter to him. But is it because the groups supported him? Or did those groups support him because he and they have similar priorities? Is Obama promising certain environmental regulations because the Sierra Club is giving him money? Or is the Sierra Club giving him money because they feel he's the better candidate for their issues? The idea that this should be illegal, or that this sort of thing even COULD be made illegal, is ludicrous.

The employees from these firms have donated lots of money to his campaign.

Which is legal.

Only half of the $265 million that Obama raised came from small Internet donors.

And? That's still 1.5 million individual donors, which is a hell of a lot and certainly dwarfs anything demonstrated by any prior campaign. It's an impressive breadth and depth regardless of the fact that, yes, he also has some wealthier bundlers and donors.

And again, large dollar donations are not illegal. As long as people are not giving over the regulated limits, as long as they do not violate the other laws that govern giving money to political candidates, and as long as they are not federally registered lobbyists (as Sen. Obama isn't taking their money).

Also: Hillary lost. Get over it.

Posted by jbryan | June 23, 2008 10:21 PM

I don't know-- I think there is more going on here.

Posted by Swan | June 23, 2008 10:36 PM

I don't think it is easier for them to take this hit because they are "reformers". It wouldn't even have been a story if an anti-reform candidate had declined public money and gone with loads of private donors.

But the reason I think Obama gets away with it is that nobody really cares about campaign finance. At least, the potential benefit from x more ads so greatly outweighs the small cost of the damage to the constituency who really values this. Worst case scenario: if Obama makes a bunch of pragmatic decisions like this, it starts to erode the hope brand.

Posted by Tom | June 23, 2008 10:58 PM

omg - what's with jackasses on our side equating Obama and McCain?

Posted by sherifffruitfly | June 23, 2008 11:05 PM

One observation painfully absent from the "OHMIGOD Obama is not perfectSEEITOLDYOUSO!" coverage is that (duh) Obama is actually going to have to raise money dollar for dollar whereas McCain will get matching funds. How that does not in some way mitigate this "he did it all for the money, come on, the money" argument by at least demonstrating that he will have to in some way work to overcome the additional risk he has voluntarily accepted I will never know.

Bottom line: Media types are badly misreading Obama's most potent appeal. It is not that he has fooled millions into believing he is a better person than everyone who has ever run for president ever. No, it is that he is seen as the antidote for Bushism--a strong Democrat with good policy judgement. These folks who think his appeal lies in his percieved perfection are deeply out of touch with what is truly going on in this country. No matter what they throw at him, he is not going down or even truly taking a hit on this issue. Solving Bushism goes much deeper than campaign finance reform. At the very least it involves clearing all those bums out and getting them as far away from the levers of power as possible. That means McCain is dreaming if he thinks he can make this a "big deal."

Posted by michael | June 23, 2008 11:12 PM

It's depressingly unsurprising that the Rah-Rah wing of the Democratic party LOVES campaign finance reform when the private system channels money to Republicans, but thinks it's "unimportant" when Democrats get the upper hand. Seriously, it's like you commenters are reading off a list of DNC talking points.

It's really not as black and white as "Obama backed out of a promise" or "McCain broke finance laws." McCain found a questionably legal loophole that didn't really have a precident, and Obama made a promise before his campaign made huge leaps forward in what it means to have a privately funded campaign.

I won't try to defend McCain because I honestly don't know the legal details, but Obama has a very good argument here: the public finance laws have, in the past 9 months, become obsolete, because the whole game of private financing has changed. If he wanted to, he could push even stricter limits on private financing - one obvious example would be to campaign on pushing the max donation cap down to say 1000-1500 dollars.

I mean, isn't the whole point of campaign finance reform that private financing unfairly consolidates power among those who can give the most? And the counter-argument is that it's inefficient and unfair for the government to have to pay for private campaigns, correct? Obama gets to have his cake and eat it too!

Anyway, contrary to Matt's cynical view, I think Obama and McCain both ASPIRE to be reformers. I just think Obama has a much more systematic, pragmatic and effective methodology for getting it done. It's really not terrible at all.

Posted by ly_yng | June 24, 2008 3:59 AM

MY engages in ridiculous high Broderism. McCain broke the law, and even the Republican hack chairing the FEC is constraiend to acknowledge. Obama, on the other hand, is doing something which is (1) legal, (2) not inconsistent with any promise he made (because his promise was conditioned on McCain's actions), and (3)not anti-reform (because he's raising money from millions of small doners, not basing his campaign on big corporate money).

MY usually does better than falling into the faux even-handedness trap . . .

Posted by rea | June 24, 2008 4:53 AM

Isn't it a good thing that Obama is not on welfare?

Posted by Glaivester | June 24, 2008 8:16 AM

"But the reason I think Obama gets away with it is that nobody really cares about campaign finance."

Precisely, the public doesn't. Campaign finance 'reform' is an astroturf operation run by a small group of liberal foundations such as Pew. It never had much public support, but over a hundred million bucks got spent creating the appearance of such support. The press were glad to go along with the gag, since silencing everybody else enhances their own influence. Otherwise it might have been exposed sooner.

Regardless, why do 'reformers' feel they can circumvent the very rules they worked to set up? It's the doctrine of the elite in action: The rules are meant to deal with corruption, but THEY know that they're incorruptible, being the good guys, so the rules aren't really necessary in their own cases.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 24, 2008 8:35 AM

It seems to me that this whole thing exposes one of the biggest risks for Obama - he has set expectations of his own behavior so high that anything remotely "politician-like" will be seen as a fall from grace - and a major news story. The media already seems to evince utter shock at the possibility that realism might drive his campaign strategy.

For example, Obama cited 527 groups as a reason for opting out... but as almost every media outlet has breathlessly explained to the public, there are no Republican 527 groups after Obama! They leave out the painfully obvious caveat: At least not yet, anyway, but it's only June. God forbid his campaign anticipates what its opponents next move might be. That would be downright undemocratic, just not something a reformer would do...

Posted by pk | June 24, 2008 10:00 AM

Ignoring this banal arguments over whether Obama did something wrong, MY raises an interesting (but I feel incorrect) point:

Are the sum actions Obama and McCain have taken this cycle good or bad for said reform groups? I definitely feel Obama's have (the legislation he favors is good, this has gotten a lot of publicity, etc) whereas McCain hasn't.

Posted by Shock Mouse | June 24, 2008 10:30 AM

Obama opting out of the public finance system is an example of breaking the rule to preserve the principle.

The point of the public financing system is to reduce the influence of corporate, PAC, special interest, etc. money on elections. Obama is doing exactly that by raising gobs of money from private individuals.

Posted by Michael M. | June 24, 2008 5:39 PM