Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Retaining Positions Even When They Hurt You
It looks like I'm all alone on this one. While other liberal bloggers are giddy at the prospect of Barack Obama opting out of the public financing system in the general election,
I'm pretty uncomfortable with it. Oh, I understand the tactical
advantages - Obama will be able to outspend the cash-strapped McCain by
2 or 3 to 1. But I've always been a supporter of public financed
campaigns, and it seems hypocritical to abandon that position for the
sake of a temporary convenience.
Public financing is supposed
to level the playing field for all candidates, so that it's campaigning
and issues rather than fundraising that determines elections. It
doesn't really matter if my candidate is benefiting from the imbalance
- it's still wrong.
You don't find my argument from principle
convincting> Well how about this one? Do you really think that
Democrats will enjoy a permanent small donor advantage? And below the
presidential level, what is the likelihood that candidates without big
wallets or famous names will be able to raise this kind of cash? It's a
disastrous mistake to assume that other candidates will be able to do
what Obama has done. In many ways he's a sui generis candidate.
Comments (3)
McCain has been flip-flopping on public finance. He is a flake and I would pull out too.
April 10, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the thing... the reason why Obama might want to opt out of public financing is because the RNC has a huge warchest (while McCain does not), and the DNC does not have a warchest.
So - in a public financing scenario - the RNC can pay for ads beating up on Obama, and Obama (presumably) wouldn't have the cash to fight back.
Here would be my solution to the dilemma.
Obama opts for public financing (forcing McCain to do the same, as it seems he will do).
Obama then appeals to his millions of donors - (~1.2 - 1.3 million at latest count). Take $150 - $200 and donate to the DNC. That creates an equivalent war chest - and a more level playing field.
As to 527s - I go back and forth on that... I'm concerned about Ari Fleischers "Freedoms's Watch" thing, but then I think about Unions, MoveOn, Emily's List (if they would be willing to get back on board if Hillary doesn't win), and think I don't want to lose those voices in the general. So - not sure we can afford a "deal" whereby both candidates would ask 527s to keep their mouths shut. (I also think the conservative 527s would break that deal about 12 seconds after it was made.)
So - if we (meaning the people who want a Democrat in the White House) can stop our infighting over which Democrat for about 10 minutes and agree to fund the DNC, then we'll be in a lot better shape come November.
April 10, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans will most certainly cheat.
McCain has lost the high ground on this issue since he is currently breaking the law.
Obama had answered on a questionnaire that he would be willing to take public funds if an agreement could be reached with the Republican nominee.
The problem is that once the Republicans start to cheat, you could not change course and opt out of the public financing.
I say no deal.
April 10, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment