By Any Means Necessary: Obama Opts Out
It's become obvious in the days since he sewed up the nomination. Barack Obama is playing to win.
Not surprisingly, I am delighted. I am especially delighted that he has decided to opt out of matching funds, allowing regular folks to underwrite his campaign.
Think about it. It is possible (more than possible) that Barack Obama will go to the White House because millions of new donors provided him with the largest campaign war chest history and because millions of previously disenfranchised voters came to the polls.
In other words, the next Democratic President would not owe his election to any special interest. Just us. And it will be to US that he has to deliver.
With the stakes so high, with the neocons waiting in the wings to take us into Iran, with the corporate crowd getting ready to drill off-shore and in Alaska, with effects of climate change surrounding us, with the Supreme Court ready to swing right, this is an absolutely critical moment.
The Democratic ticket has to win.
As we used to say back in the day: "by any means necessary."
I think Atrios said it best -- the problem isn't money in politics, it's that for a long time there was only big money in politics. Since Obama has solved that problem by building a vast small donor network, he hasn't made any sort of ethical compromise by opting out of the public financing system.
June 19, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's success does depend on campaign finance laws, most particularly the contribution limits. Individuals are limited to $2,300 per campaign cycle (with the primary and the general election separate cycles). That caps how much cash truly deep pockets can contribute directly, meaning that a hundred "regular folks" giving $100 have as much say as a power-couple contributing to the max.
Without such caps, wealthier individuals or corporations would be able to raise even more money. As the book club posts this week remind us, wealth in the U.S. roughly follows a power law distribution, so absent contribution limits, wealth might well dominate even Obama's prodigious grass-roots fund-raising.
June 19, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
True enough. But there's no reason for him to accept the fundraising limits that he would have to live with if he took public financing.
Indeed, refusing public financing actually gives his small donors greater influence since they'll be able to keep contributing throughout the election.
June 19, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 17, 2011 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. In a perfect world, we'd have multiple primary votes each election cycle, perhaps secure electronically, and ranked choice voting, and multiple public financing credits allocated to each person to distribute as they see fit, to truly arrive at the best candidate while also allowing other voices to participate and maintaining the principle of proportional input.
Having said that, you have to play under the existing rules, and Obama is clearly raising the most small contributions from a larger base. So I think it's both fair and good for him to continue doing so.
As Josh points out, McCain is actually violating campaign finance rules to this day. So it's a bit absurd he's complaining. But what else can he do? Other than lose gracefully?
June 19, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if I am following. So its more ethical to take non public financing that public financing? The folks ponying up the dollars won't have more influence than general public money?
June 19, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you're relying on a base of small donors you essentially ae taking public money. So it's okay to have more of it since the dollars flowing in are simply an expression of the enthusiasm that the public has for a candidate.
There's no reason to set limits on that type of fund raising. If Obama has more money than McCain because more people like Obama than like McCain, that's fine.
What we want to avoid are situations where a candidate has more money not because more people like them but because more rich people like them.
June 19, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to clarify: There is a huge difference between "a (large) base of small donors" and "a small base of large donors."
June 19, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tank you, Thankard.
June 19, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube converter
December 20, 2010 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just to clarify: There is a huge difference between "a (large) base of small donors" and "a small base of large donors."
June 19, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The propaganda machinery at work here is amazing. If Obama decides that we need permanent bases in Iraq to allow us to draw down troops, will he be hailed as a hero for his “pragmatism”? Obama is basically crapping on his own highly touted campaign finance ethics reform (co-sponsored with Feingold). The reform that was still needed was in the primary campaigns not the general and Obama has just sold out his campaign reform allies.
June 19, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really not know how this system works in this time of limited contributions? Some well connected person in a certain industry, for example oil or HMO's, goes to the offices of that industry with a recommendtion from the company president. Every executive in the company gives the max donation or at least a large one.
This person then "bundles" these "individual" checks and delivers them to the candidate. These bundlers bring in a few hundred thousand at a time. Of course its all listed as individual contributions but the candidate sure knows who is bringing in the 200,000 dollar bundled amount and what industry he represents. Just the new scheme for big money to buy access to politicians in the age of "campaign finance reform."
Bush had his "pioneers" and Hillary her "Hillraisers" Obama has bundlers too just as many as Hillary. While the small internet givers may have lessened the impact of bundlers its still a big part of the game, probably the biggest part.
Come on people, what did you think all those articles about Obama looking to get Hillary's fundraisers to start working for him were referring to? It wasn't the small donors he was looking for but Hillary's bundlers. Big oil bundler, wall street bundler, HMO bundler, etc. Obama has them too but by now they probably have gotten the max contribution for Obama from their contacts. Hillary's bundlers can go back to the same executives they got cash from for hillary and hit them up for Obama.
June 19, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
He needs that money help fight off the 527 smears and swift boating....
June 19, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Repubs, but Obama is going to let his public supporters finance his campaign. Don't cry about it, just get your own list of public supporters...if you can.
June 19, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain is upset that a black man has decided not to go on welfare.
Go to Hell, McCain.
June 19, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama knew about 527s before he said he would aggressively pursue public financing with his opponent and he publicly criticized Hillary for not pledging to use public financing in the general.
Sometimes it is okay to admit your candidate is doing something expedient and unprincipled. To pretend he has the moral high ground here doesn't make any sense. People see right through it. Honesty helps. Try it! Yes Obama pleded to taske public financing but came to the realization he can make more money on the internets. Yes he is reversing his position, but he needs to use every possible advantage he has to get elected so he can stand up for larger democratic principles.
June 20, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's opting out just opens the floodgates to being bought out. No matter how many small donors he has, he still has large donors--and they're the ones who matter.
.
Think of it this way: If some guy is running for dog catcher and he has 50 donors who each give $10 or less to his campaign and one guy who gives $1,000, who is the candidate going to listen to after he's elected? The many folks with diverse and often opposing interests who gave $10 or less, or the one guy with one special interest who gave $1,000?
.
So it just doesn't matter how many small donors a candidate has IF he takes money from large, concentrated sources as well--which Obama is certainly doing. And last time I checked, his big sources were the financial and insurance industries, lawyers and Big Pharma, pretty much the usual suspects. (The Repubs count on Big Oil and Big Pharma, so they may be marginally worse.)
.
Of course, the same could be said for public funds. It's just anonymous money that does nothing to enhance a candidate's integrity. The only thing that Obama does by rejecting it is put a broader and deeper stamp of Demublican approval on our sick system of big money in politics.
.
Now, if he refused to take any donation from any single or bundled source of more than, say, $50 or so, that would be something. As it is, he's just another rotten pol whose word means nothing.
June 20, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat
March 1, 2011 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Madison believed that we should have separation of church and state throughout the land, federal and local. There was a fascinating moment during the congressional debate over what became the First Amendment. How could the beloved First Amendment be harmful to religion? Huntington feared that it would overturn or interfere with Connecticut’s approach, which was to have state-supported religion.
Chat | Chat
March 1, 2011 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v server 2008, iscsi san performance
April 8, 2011 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I admire the valuable information you offer in your articles. I will bookmark your blog and have my children check up here often. I am quite sure they will learn lots of new stuff here than anybody else!
Music For Videos
April 20, 2011 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability failover
May 4, 2011 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink