Obama opts out of public campaign finance system

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,903
2
76
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: lupi
Yep, he's using his political machine real well for traditional politics.

Which wouldn't matter except he's the politician for change and not politics like normal. That kinda gets you in a conundrum unless you recognize that's he's going to lie as necessary to improve his campaign chances.
FFS it's not a 'lie' to change your mind and to be a candidate of 'change' doesn't mean doing every single thing the exact opposite of traditional politicians of the past.

he should change it to from "candidate of change" to "I'm just better than the other guy."
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: lupi
Yep, he's using his political machine real well for traditional politics.

Which wouldn't matter except he's the politician for change and not politics like normal. That kinda gets you in a conundrum unless you recognize that's he's going to lie as necessary to improve his campaign chances.
FFS it's not a 'lie' to change your mind and to be a candidate of 'change' doesn't mean doing every single thing the exact opposite of traditional politicians of the past.

What size flip flops you wear?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: maddogchen
one of many broken promises to come from Obama. Just like any other politician.

You made the attack, back it up. List the broken promises.

It's already been explained to you why this is not a broken promise.

This technically isn't a broken promise b/c he only pledged to try to reach a pub fin agreement, and Bill didn't technically have sex with that woman, b/c a bj isn't intercourse. When you start parsing words and clauses to figure a way out of a situation, it's already too late.

It's funny, actually being interested in the primaries this year I find I'm able to view both candidates without too much bias.

In the "Obama wants to disarm America" thread I defended Obama from an obvious spin and typical republican ploy, and here I can call him on making a politically expedient decision despite clearly stating intentions to do otherwise. Even Eugene Robinson, a huge BO fan, isn't trying to spin this one.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: lupi
Yep, he's using his political machine real well for traditional politics.

Which wouldn't matter except he's the politician for change and not politics like normal. That kinda gets you in a conundrum unless you recognize that's he's going to lie as necessary to improve his campaign chances.
FFS it's not a 'lie' to change your mind and to be a candidate of 'change' doesn't mean doing every single thing the exact opposite of traditional politicians of the past.

What size flip flops you wear?

Robor's right. What do you expect? Anyone who interprets that Obama is going to do EVERYTHING differently is nuts. That is not what Obama is portraying at all. Yes, he wants to change many things to make them much better, but give me a break.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Originally posted by: Socio
Obama opt-out is big threat to troubled system

From the moment that the public financing system was created in the wake of the Watergate crisis, it was viewed as an imperfect way to rid politics of the excesses of special-interest money.

But now, with the decision by Senator Barack Obama to become the first presidential candidate to forgo public money, the system is facing the most critical threat to its survival.

Over the years, these loopholes have come in different names and different forms. Back in the 1990s, there was ?soft money,? a flood of unlimited and unrestricted donations given to party committees, leading to influence-peddling excesses that were laid bare in a Clinton-era Senate investigation.

That type of giving was outlawed, and a few years later came the rise of ?527 money,? named for a section of the tax code that regulates independent spending.

In recent years have come the ?bundlers,? or wealthy individuals who gather donations from other rich donors. They are the Rangers and Pioneers and other titled donors that are the descendants of the Republican Team 100 fund-raising juggernaut of the first President Bush.

But Mr. Obama?s decision to opt out of public financing ? along with the ability of the Internet to let candidates raise large sums of money from small donors ? may do more to shatter the system than all of the loopholes it has spawned.

Not only does it sound like Obama has already been bought and paid for by special interest groups, he plans on destroying the only safeguard we have that can keep others from being bought off as well.

He is going to finish turning this country from we the people controlled to he who has the most money controlled; he is not even President yet and is already starting to destroy our very foundations.


That's the most circular argument yet, socio. You apparently didn't even read what you linked, as anybody with half a brain would reach exactly the opposite conclusions to your own...

The current system is the one paving the way for big money to run the country, and the GWB admin and former Repub congress are the apex of that dungheap. And, yes, the Obama campaign is out to destroy the very foundations of that by pooling the piddling resources of Joe and Joan Everyman into something worthy of contention, something to buy off the whores of the media in the same way that the Scaife Foundations and corporate lobbyists have done for decades...

Yeh, Obama has sold out the the biggest special interest group of all- the middle class, contributors who cough up less than $200 each in an attempt to rid the system of the scum currently controlling it...

Yes the current system had/has loopholes that allowed it to a degree, however now Obama?s stance will destroy the system so no loopholes are needed, it will be wide open, whoever has the most money wins. You can spin it all day and any way you want but the fact is it is NOT a good thing, it is a very bad thing and he cannot be so stupid as to not know it.

There is your sign he is no Messiah, it is pretty obvious he is a bought and paid for con-man acting in the best interest of major corporations not the people.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Socio


Yes the current system had/has loopholes that allowed it to a degree, however now Obama?s stance will destroy the system so no loopholes are needed, it will be wide open, whoever has the most money wins. You can spin it all day and any way you want but the fact is it is NOT a good thing, it is a very bad thing and he cannot be so stupid as to not know it.

The current system was put in place to attempt to control spending and put limits on individual contributions so that people wouldn't be "bought off"

Then came all the loopholes

If Obama's campaign, and any future campaigns can raise money by tapping into thousands or millions of donators...then how is that a bad thing? contributions caps are still in place so that no one entity can donate more than any other right?

IMHO I think its simply a groundswell of support for Obama. Its almost like Shaquille O'Neal walking onto the court for the first time, all other athletes just don't compare to the size of strength of him, and Shaq dominated all other players. Obama's popularity seems to be no different, and the contributions reflect that.

I think this is another mountain out of a molehill attempt, I also think that since Obama is so popular and that he is able to raise so much $$ that GOP supporters are choosing the sour grapes approach to campaign spending. Kind of funny when you think about all the money the GOP used to raise for its election year campaigns.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: maddogchen
Analysis: Obama chose winning over his word

Sure doesn't look that way to the media. Everyone is talking about him reversing course. You guys are happily shooting at McCain for doing so. Now its Obama's turn.
Either Ms. Sidoti needs a Journalism refresher or the AP needs to learn to clearly label Op-Eds. That is not an objective, factual news article.


Originally posted by: Craig234
You made the attack, back it up. List the broken promises.

It's already been explained to you why this is not a broken promise.

Really? must have missed it.
Must have. It was easy enough for me to find, in several different posts. Obama promised to try to reach an agreement with McCain. He did try (or at least his lawyer did).


But I wouldn't be surprised, another politician trying to back out, trying to put the spin oh i never promised it even though that was obviously what he meant. Its what you willingly led everyone to believe.

All of them are the same, liars. McCain, Obama, Hillary, Bush, the other Clinton.
It's unfortunate Obama didn't stick to principle, but it would have been foolish for him to sacrifice such a tremendous advantage in what will be a tough race. I'm not sure where the Obama bashers are coming up with this tripe about Obama the messiah, walks on water, is above mere mortal concerns like effective campaign strategy. I don't see that level of deluded idolatry in most of his supporters (certainly not to the same extent we saw it in the Bush faithful). Yes, Obama is a politician, and yes, he's in the race to win. Imagine that. Film at 11!
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: loki8481
And it's amazing what you can see the Barack Hussein Obama team is going to do with their cash inflow...

he's going to have more money than he could possibly spend in the swing states.... why wouldn't they contest every state, no matter how far of a reach it might be, if they can afford the ad buys?

OH! Why should the Obama team try to win!?!

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. heh.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing.

it's just going to be interesting, since we've never seen it done before (or at least I personally have never seen a 50-state campaign for the presidency in my lifetime)
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: loki8481

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. heh.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing.

it's just going to be interesting, since we've never seen it done before (or at least I personally have never seen a 50-state campaign for the presidency in my lifetime)

Ya, there is no doubt about that. Plus, I kind of like how he is willing to push the envelope a little to make sure that the job gets done the way he believes it will be done best. Regardless of whether or not I agree with his views, I like that kind of character trait in anyone. I like bending the rules sometimes when appropriate.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

It's unfortunate Obama didn't stick to principle, but it would have been foolish for him to sacrifice such a tremendous advantage in what will be a tough race. I'm not sure where the Obama bashers are coming up with this tripe about Obama the messiah, walks on water, is above mere mortal concerns like effective campaign strategy. I don't see that level of deluded idolatry in most of his supporters (certainly not to the same extent we saw it in the Bush faithful). Yes, Obama is a politician, and yes, he's in the race to win. Imagine that. Film at 11!

Really I think its a lame smear attempt.

They put Obama on a pedestal (he's the messiah, he's perfect etc etc etc) that way any wrong move or mistake Obama makes they can bash him and knock him down.

So far its the only way that Obama detractors can smear him as an individual...I mean really there is nothing anyone can pin on Obama so they have to try to create this caricature of Obama so that he can be attacked easier.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

It's unfortunate Obama didn't stick to principle, but it would have been foolish for him to sacrifice such a tremendous advantage in what will be a tough race. I'm not sure where the Obama bashers are coming up with this tripe about Obama the messiah, walks on water, is above mere mortal concerns like effective campaign strategy. I don't see that level of deluded idolatry in most of his supporters (certainly not to the same extent we saw it in the Bush faithful). Yes, Obama is a politician, and yes, he's in the race to win. Imagine that. Film at 11!
Really I think its a lame smear attempt.

They put Obama on a pedestal (he's the messiah, he's perfect etc etc etc) that way any wrong move or mistake Obama makes they can bash him and knock him down.

So far its the only way that Obama detractors can smear him as an individual...I mean really there is nothing anyone can pin on Obama so they have to try to create this caricature of Obama so that he can be attacked easier.
I agree. It's just another form of swiftboating. When you don't have anything of substance, make something up and shout it over and over until the easily-duped start buying it.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: OrByte
They put Obama on a pedestal (he's the messiah, he's perfect etc etc etc) that way any wrong move or mistake Obama makes they can bash him and knock him down.

"Change we can believe in."

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over"

"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours"


Was he "put" on a pedastal or did he sprint up the stairs himself?
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
Interesting commentary on this from David Brooks:

I have to admit, I?m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he?ll sell that out, what won?t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain?t beanbag. If we?re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I?d use to describe Barack Obama. He?s the most effectively political creature we?ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn?t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
Personally, I'm with Bush on this one - let History be the judge. When all is said and done, hopefully someone looks at the relative spending of each side's 527s. If the Republican leaning 527s end up spending a ton of money relative to moveon.org and company, then Obama's stance will appear more credible.

Walking into a trap, throwing away hundreds of thousands of small individual contributions to opt-in to the public system, only to be ambushed by unfettered attack dog 527s would have been the biggest demonstration of poor judgement and naïvety. I don't want a president who walks into binding agreements that get America screwed when our enemies use wide gaping loopholes to make us look like fools. Yes, Obama looks less idealistic having done this, but at the same time he looks more ready to be a real-world president, in my view.

What shocks me is that we don't have more Republicans cheering this triumph of free speech. :p
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: OrByte
They put Obama on a pedestal (he's the messiah, he's perfect etc etc etc) that way any wrong move or mistake Obama makes they can bash him and knock him down.

"Change we can believe in."

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over"

"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours"


Was he "put" on a pedastal or did he sprint up the stairs himself?
actually that sounds like Hillary or McCain or Bush or Bill or....every other politician who mentioned the words change and believe.

I think you and yours are the ones doing the sprinting... imho.
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,903
2
76
if Obama gets something like a 5-1 ratio in campaign fundraising and wins, do you think it will look like he tried to buy the presidency?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: naddicott
Interesting commentary on this from David Brooks:

I have to admit, I?m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he?ll sell that out, what won?t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain?t beanbag. If we?re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I?d use to describe Barack Obama. He?s the most effectively political creature we?ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn?t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
Personally, I'm with Bush on this one - let History be the judge. When all is said and done, hopefully someone looks at the relative spending of each side's 527s. If the Republican leaning 527s end up spending a ton of money relative to moveon.org and company, then Obama's stance will appear more credible.

Actually, the Dem 527s spent far more money in the 2004 election. link

Advocacy groups supporting Senator John Kerry's presidential bid outspent those supporting President Bush's by more than three to one during the last election cycle, according to a new report by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan investigative organization.

McCain has been denouncing 527s for quite a while now. Which is ironic since he is partially responsible for their creation with the McCain-Feingold act.

That said, Obama will enjoy massive support from 527s. MoveOn.org spent a ton of money in the 2004 election and looks like it will be doing the same again. The AFL-CIO spent just over $6 million in 2004 but has budgeted $50 million to support Obama in the general election.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Since Obama has changed his stance on Public Campaign Financing, can any of his other campaign promises be trusted?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Since Obama has changed his stance on Public Campaign Financing, can any of his other campaign promises be trusted?

Obama has shifted positions on NAFTA, Iraq, Iran, public financing of campaigns, Israel, Palestine, Wright, his church, his VP vetter, Cuba, illegal immigration, and a host of other issues.

Obama is a politician just like any other.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: maddogchen
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: lupi
Yep, he's using his political machine real well for traditional politics.

Which wouldn't matter except he's the politician for change and not politics like normal. That kinda gets you in a conundrum unless you recognize that's he's going to lie as necessary to improve his campaign chances.
FFS it's not a 'lie' to change your mind and to be a candidate of 'change' doesn't mean doing every single thing the exact opposite of traditional politicians of the past.

he should change it to from "candidate of change" to "I'm just better than the other guy."

Not necessary. He's the candidate of change who is also better than the other guy.

 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: lupi
What size flip flops you wear?

Robor's right. What do you expect? Anyone who interprets that Obama is going to do EVERYTHING differently is nuts. That is not what Obama is portraying at all. Yes, he wants to change many things to make them much better, but give me a break.

It's pointless. It doesn't matter what Obama does this one is going to nit pick because his beloved Hillary didn't win the nomination. I don't know why I even responded in the first place.

 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Obamabots sure can find ways to excuse his hypocrisy for their beloved Obamessaiah. If any other politicians were to do this Obamabots would go ape-sh!t on it.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
This is actually getting fun. It seems just about every liberal paper editorial page is slapping down this decision. Everyone knows and acknoledges why he did it, if only he would do the same.


It was touching though that he does this via online message only, right after his personal 527 releases the baby alex ad. Oh hypocrisy how art thow.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
I would maybe possibly not have a potential issue with Obama opting out of the public financing system if it weren't for things like this that even the WaPo has noticed.

?John McCain?s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs,? Obama said in his message to supporters yesterday. ?And we?ve already seen that he?s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.?

To date, no conservative 527 groups have materialized.

Meanwhile, as I mentioned before, MoveOn is already attacking McCain and the AFL-CIO has budgeted $50 million to support Obama.

Also, if you go to OpenSecrets.org, you'll see that PACs have contributed a whopping $960k to the McCain campaign...1% of the total contributions to the McCain campaign.

WaPo editorial

BARACK OBAMA isn't abandoning his pledge to take public financing for the general election campaign because it's in his political interest. Certainly not. He isn't about to become the first candidate since Watergate to run an election fueled entirely with private money because he will be able to raise far more that way than the mere $85 million he'd get if he stuck to his promise -- and with which his Republican opponent, John McCain, will have to make do. No, Mr. Obama, or so he would have you believe, is forgoing the money because he is so committed to public financing. Really, it hurts him more than it hurts Fred Wertheimer.

Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama's earlier pledge to "aggressively pursue" an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take. "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Mr. Obama said in a video message to supporters.

Mr. Obama didn't mention his previous proposal to take public financing if the Republican nominee agreed to do the same -- the one for which he received heaps of praise from campaign finance reform advocates such as Mr. Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, and others, including us. He didn't mention, as he told the Federal Election Commission last year in seeking to preserve the option, that "Congress concluded some thirty years ago that the public funding alternative . . . would serve core purposes in the public interest: limiting the escalation of campaign spending and the associated pressures on candidates to raise, at the expense of time devoted to public dialogue, ever vaster sums of money."

Instead, he cast his abandonment of the system as a bold good-government move. "This is our moment, and our country is depending on us," he said. "So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system and let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people." Sure, and if the Founding Fathers were around today, they'd have bundlers, too.

Mr. Obama had an opportunity here to demonstrate that he really is a different kind of politician, willing to put principles and the promises he has made above political calculation. He made a different choice, and anyone can understand why: He's going to raise a ton of money. Mr. McCain played games with taking federal matching funds for the primaries until it turned out he didn't need them, and he had a four-month head start in the general election while Mr. Obama was still battling for the nomination. Outside groups are going to come after him. He has thousands of small donors along with his big bundlers. And so on.

Fine. Politicians do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they're doing it.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,750
2,525
126
I find it supremely ironic that so-called conservatives get their panties all in a twist becasue a Democratic politican has the unmitigated gall to elect NOT to suck from the public teat.

McCain can do the same thing if he feels Obama has an unfair advantage by doing so. It would say us taxpayers another $84,000,000-maybe chump change to him, but not me.

And if you don't think the GOP 527 swiftboaters aren't going to be out in full force this fall, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Obama is still subject to the election laws-including campaign donation limits. The fact of the matter is he has a huge base of us little guys who are willing to send him something, while the typical politician (especially the GOP ones) depend on large donations from fat cats looking for favors from the government.