Obama and Public Finance

ActBlue just released the following statement in response to the Obama campaign's decision to opt out of the public financing system.

Barack Obama announced this week that his presidential campaign would be opting out of the public financing system.

The decision has been met with considerable, and we think misguided, consternation in the press.

As delightful as it can be to note, and be noted for noting, apparent contradictions in the actions of public figures, we fear that the media are missing the broader point here: that in an era of extraordinarily complex politics, this most recent decision of the Obama campaign undergirds, rather than undercuts, the campaign's unwavering commitment to participatory democracy.

Public financing could work, in a closed system, and it may well be that such a system would carry certain advantages. But the system, as it exists, is not closed; funds from special interests often drown out public monies.

Recognizing this, the Obama campaign chose to opt out of public financing. The grand irony, of course, is that it would have been Obama's other, and far more virtuous, choices-the decision not to accept money from special interests and lobbyists, for instance-that would have placed him at a disadvantage relative to the Republican apparatus, which has not made similar commitments. Had Obama not opted out, Democrats would have suffered from the apparently virtuous constraints of the public financing system, gaining perhaps in public perception but losing ground to a Republican machine that carried in one hand the banner of campaign finance reform and in the other great wads of checks from lobbyists.

To accept public financing, in Obama's case, would have been to choose a strategy because it looked virtuous. But there is nothing virtuous about martyring a campaign for the passing glory of a good news cycle. There is glory in victory, and there is virtue in playing fair. We hope that the public sees this decision for what it is: a commitment to the idea that the financing of elections should be the province of the many, not of the few.

Jonathan Zucker
Executive Director

                                               

Comments

[steve]

pathetic attempt at apologism; yet another guy who will change his tune for political expediency. you just lost my vote, dude.

[Terry]

I agree with most of what you have said here. I just wish Obama deserved all this support he is getting. I don't particularly find him very trustworthy. I am 58 years old, and I have always voted Democrat. I don't have that "HOPE" that all those Obama supporters have. Obama hasn't shown us anything concrete yet, and all he seems to do is talk a good talk. He is as much a politician as the rest of them...groomed and directed by well-seasoned, anti-Hillary male politicians. We are throwing away our best chance to turn this country around.
Heaven forbid we should let a woman do what a man could not do. We all know Obama would not be where he is without all the grooming from seasoned politicians like Kennedy, Kerry, and Gephart, etc., and "especially" if he were a woman. Oh, one more thing! My guess is that Nancy Pelosi shamefully made it obvious (w/o actually saying so) that she was supporting Obama during the primary because "she" wants to be the first woman President some day.
Yes...surprise, surprise...women can be ambitious, too!

[JK]

Does ActBlue make sure to get checks to offices before the FEC deadline?

[Garrett]

Obama doesn't need public finance because he has been receiving so much money from lobbyists despite his promises to the contrary.

Take a look at Bonnie Erbe's article about "Omaba's Fundraising Hypocrisy"

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/7/21/barack-obamas-fundraising-hypocrisy--a-lobbyist-by-any-other-name.html