Obama opts out of public campaign finance system

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: naddicott
Originally posted by: Queasy
To date, no conservative 527 groups have materialized.
Really? (Willie Horton 2.0)

<chuckle> at the DU referal.

Anyways, that's the fault of the WaPo author then. Though, I'd be surprised if that particular commercial ever materializes outside of the internets.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Is the lupi/loki duo trying to steal the top spot from CAD/Prof?

You two are up-and-comers in the waning field of GOP hacks.

Those who live in glass houses should be careful with the stones. ;)

I knew I was saving the irony of the week award for something good. A repeat winner.
 

OrByte

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

wow it looks like McCain's campaign is in pretty bad financial shape when compared to Obama's.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: maddogchen


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.

Really? must have missed it. 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.

In other words, you cannot back your attack of 'many broken promises' whatsoever.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Thump553
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.

It's called bundling. It's where a supporter gathers up a donations from family members, friends, co-workers, etc to avoid the laws regarding PACs and gives the illusion of grass-roots support. Obama has lobbyists, CEOs, etc acting as bundlers for him. So did Hillary (Google Norman Hsu). So does McCain.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: maddogchen
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: maddogchen
one of many broken promises to come from Obama. Just like any other politician.

Which promise did he break? Oh yeah... :roll:

One of the problems you guys are going to have with this "Just like any other politician" spin is that that's what you're running just any other too.

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.

Media spin of a non-issue.

The Democrat once made a conditional agreement to accept taxpayer money from the public financing system, and accompanying spending limits, if his Republican opponent did, too.

And I think everyone already knew he was a politician... :roll:^2


edit:
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.
I've been saying this for a long time. Obama won't fit into the usual Democratic candidate mold of being a pussy, and the Pubs don't know what to do about it. It's fun to watch.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: jonks
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.

I disagree with you. The easy promise would have been to pledge to use the public finance system; he didn't do that, and there was clearly no intent to deceive when he said he would talk wiht McCain's camp about jointly using public financing the way there was with Clinton's parsing of the language. Your analogy is invalid IMO - sometimes parsing is being accurate.

The fact that he left himself open at all to McCain being able to nullify his huge advantage by just coming out and saying 'hey, he's happy to use public financing and limit 527's as Obama wants, now will Obama keep his word', says a lot, and the fact is McCain did not do that.

I won't argue against Obama putting minimal effort into that agreement now that it's not in his interests, but so what? If that's the worst you can say about him...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: maddogchen
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?

If they come from narrow wealthy interests, yes. If they continue to be record-setting grass roots donations, no.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Queasy

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

Ya. The Republican ones got all the media attention, though. Everyone is familiar with the Swiftboat attacks. Quick, name a an attack ad against Bush from a 527 that got that press.00

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.

Good. We need labor to have a stronger voice than it has in recent decades, as the middle class has been beaten down, increasing productivity but getting none of the reward.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Queasy
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.

You confuse changes based on changes in situation with changes based on abandoning principle.

Your citing something like Wright is like saying that he 'changed positions' on his wife if he's with her one day, and divorces her the next when she cheats on him.

Why don't you actually lay out the case for at least some of those attacks, instead of just one word claims, and see how well they stand up?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
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.

Let me be the first to say, ODS.

Obama Derangement Syndrome. Get used to the phrase.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Queasy
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.

FYI, I view the WaPo editorial board as more right than left or center. They consistently say crazy things for the right, though not nearly as much as the solid right-wing voices.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
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.


Oh really...

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I believe that if the tables were turned that McCain would have made the exact same decision. There is just too much at stake and too much money involved. I wouldn't blame him for it either.

 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Queasy

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

Ya. The Republican ones got all the media attention, though. Everyone is familiar with the Swiftboat attacks. Quick, name a an attack ad against Bush from a 527 that got that press.00

Except all the media attention wasn't in support of the Swiftboat Ads. They were in support of Kerry for the most part.

That said, MoveOn got press over an ad comparing Bush to Hitler during the 2004 election.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Queasy
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.

FYI, I view the WaPo editorial board as more right than left or center. They consistently say crazy things for the right, though not nearly as much as the solid right-wing voices.

The first link was not to WaPo editorial page. The second link was though.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Factcheck sorta weighs in, but I was hoping they'd do more analysis on the pledge issue rather than the excuse issue, which they find "lame."

Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money
June 20, 2008
Obama says McCain is "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs, but those sources account for less than 1.7 percent of McCain's money.
Summary
Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.

One reason, he said, is that "John McCain?s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."

We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.

Analysis
Sen. Barack Obama declared June 19 that he would not accept public funds for his general election campaign and would instead finance it entirely with private donations. Or, as he put it, with money from "the American people." He thus will not be bound by the spending limits that would have come with taxpayer money, and he will be legally free to spend as much as he can manage to raise.


Obama's Explanation




Hi, this is Barack Obama.

I have an important announcement and I wanted all of you ? the people who built this movement from the bottom-up ? to hear it first. We?ve made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election. This means we?ll be forgoing more than $80 million in public funds during the final months of this election.

It?s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who?ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain?s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. 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.

From the very beginning of this campaign, I have asked my supporters to avoid that kind of unregulated activity and join us in building a new kind of politics ? and you have. Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you?ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we?ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. We?ve won the Democratic nomination by relying on ordinary people coming together to achieve extraordinary things.

You?ve already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that?s the only way we can truly change how Washington works. And that?s the path we will continue in this general election. I?m asking you to try to do something that?s never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far.

If we don?t stand together, the broken system we have now, a system where special interests drown out the voices of the American people will continue to erode our politics and prevent the possibility of real change. That?s why we must act. The stakes are higher than ever, and people are counting on us.

Every American who is desperate for a fair economy and affordable health care, who wants to bring our troops back from Iraq. Who hopes for a better education and future for his or her child, these people are relying on us. You and me. This is our moment and our country is depending on us. 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. With this decision this campaign is in your hands in a way that no campaign has ever been before. Now is the time to act. Thank you so much.

A Lame Excuse


However, the first of the two reasons he gave for his decision doesn't square very well with the facts. In a video recording sent to supporters, Obama said:

Obama: We face opponents who?ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain?s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.

To say that either the McCain campaign or the RNC are "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs is an overstatement, to say the least. Such funds make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's presidential campaign receipts and 1.1 percent of the RNC's income.

McCain ? As of the end of April, the McCain campaign had reported receiving $655,576 from lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is less than seven-tenths of 1 percent of his total receipts of $96,654,783. His campaign also took in $960,990 from PACs, amounting to just under 1 percent of total receipts. The two sources combined make up less than 1.7 percent of his total.

RNC ? The Republican National Committee has raised $143,298,225, of which only $135,000 has been come from lobbyists, according to the CRP. That's less than one-tenth of 1 percent. It also took in about 1 percent of its receipts from PACs, CRP said. Taken together, that's about 1.1 percent from PACs and lobbyists.


Obama's Advantage


It's not our place to comment on the wisdom or propriety of Obama's financial strategy, except to note that it is perfectly legal and also that McCain and Obama both refused to accept public funds or spending limits during the primary campaign.

We also note that Obama's decision ? whatever may have motivated it ? is likely to give him a big financial advantage over McCain in the weeks just before the November election. This is a reversal of the historic pattern, in which Republican candidates have nearly always been able to out-raise their Democratic rivals. Had Obama accepted public funds, as McCain is expected to do, both candidates would have been limited to spending $84.1 million, all of it from taxpayers. But Obama has shown the potential for raising and spending much more.

The Obama campaign already has raised $265 million through the end of April, more than two-and-a-half times as much as McCain has taken in. Figures for May are due out soon. The Obama campaign said on May 6 that it had surpassed 1.5 million individual donors, and it probably has many more than that by now. All of those primary donors are legally free to make new contributions to finance Obama's general election campaign, which officially commences after he becomes certified as the Democratic party's nominee at the convention at the end of August.


Footnotes


The lobbyist figures we give here could stand some minor refinement. The totals might be reduced somewhat if the CRP used Obama's rather narrow definition of "lobbyist." Obama makes a point of refusing money from those who are currently registered to lobby at the federal level. The CRP has a broader definition, counting money from anyone working at a lobbying firm, registered or not, state or federal, and their families as well. By CRP's definition Obama himself has taken in $161,927 from lobbyists.

On the other hand, CRP does not count registered lobbyists who work in-house for corporations, industry groups and unions, but classifies them with their industries. Adding those in-house lobbyists to the total could increase the amounts somewhat. But adding donations from in-house lobbyists and subtracting donations from those who don't meet Obama's strict definition would not be likely to change the total by much, and certainly not by enough to justify Obama's claim that McCain and the RNC are "fueled" by such donations.

Also, for what it's worth, the Democratic National Committee has historically been far more reliant on PAC and lobbyist money than the RNC. In 2004, PACs provided about 10 percent of the DNC's total fundraising and only about 1 percent of the RNC's total, according to the CRP. Obama, after he sewed up enough delegates to win the party's nomination, sent word to the DNC to stop accepting PAC and lobbyist donations.

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Queasy

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

Ya. The Republican ones got all the media attention, though. Everyone is familiar with the Swiftboat attacks. Quick, name a an attack ad against Bush from a 527 that got that press.00

Except all the media attention wasn't in support of the Swiftboat Ads. They were in support of Kerry for the most part.

That said, MoveOn got press over an ad comparing Bush to Hitler during the 2004 election.

I don't recall the MoveOn ad, and the coverage was far, far less IMO than Swift boat.

It's true that a lot of the media coverage made it clear that there was question about the Swift boat ads with others who challenged them, but just by setting up the discussion as 'two sides', so 'conservatives' say the swift boat message and 'liberals' say they're not true, gave them a lot more airtime and credibility tan they should have had. A lot of Republicans were influenced by the Swift boat message.

Imagine there being a 'McCain worked fgor the Viet Cong' 527, who got huge media coverage where they were presented as one of two sides of the debate.

That would be wrong, too (absent real evidence to back the claim). Both should instead be dismissed by the media until they have better evidence.

Nightline was one example, rare unfortunately, who did a good job covering it, by investigating the claims. They sent a crew to Vietnam and interviewed eyewitnesses who had no reason to lie, Vietnamese farmers, who completely destroyed the claims of a leading Swiftboater and backed Kerry's story. Embarrassingly and outrageously, Bush supporters tried to argue 'you can't trust those commies'.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
McCain had his chance to renounce the 527 funding and use public financing and force Obama's hand, but did not and now Obama can freely raise the money.

Against the law. McCain can't mess with any 527.

Besides, the whole 527 thing's a non-issue; the Dems' have 527's too.

Fern
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Here is more from a story by Newsweek;

Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money

Summary

Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.

One reason, he said, is that "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."

We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.

Analysis

Sen. Barack Obama declared June 19 that he would not accept public funds for his general election campaign and would instead finance it entirely with private donations. Or, as he put it, with money from "the American people." He thus will not be bound by the spending limits that would have come with taxpayer money, and he will be legally free to spend as much as he can manage to raise.

This just shows Barack Obama can lie, cheat and steal with the best of them he is no Messiah, just a con-man with a plan.
 

deathstorm78

Member
Oct 1, 2007
72
0
61
Originally posted by: Socio
Here is more from a story by Newsweek;

Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money

Summary

Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.

One reason, he said, is that "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."

We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.

Analysis

Sen. Barack Obama declared June 19 that he would not accept public funds for his general election campaign and would instead finance it entirely with private donations. Or, as he put it, with money from "the American people." He thus will not be bound by the spending limits that would have come with taxpayer money, and he will be legally free to spend as much as he can manage to raise.

This just shows Barack Obama can lie, cheat and steal with the best of them he is no Messiah, just a con-man with a plan.

1.7 Gallons out of 100 Gallons is still fuel.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: deathstorm78
Originally posted by: Socio
Here is more from a story by Newsweek;

Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money

Summary

Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.

One reason, he said, is that "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."

We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.

Analysis

Sen. Barack Obama declared June 19 that he would not accept public funds for his general election campaign and would instead finance it entirely with private donations. Or, as he put it, with money from "the American people." He thus will not be bound by the spending limits that would have come with taxpayer money, and he will be legally free to spend as much as he can manage to raise.

This just shows Barack Obama can lie, cheat and steal with the best of them he is no Messiah, just a con-man with a plan.

1.7 Gallons out of 100 Gallons is still fuel.

That depends on what your definition of "is" is. :roll:
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Ya. The Republican ones got all the media attention, though. Everyone is familiar with the Swiftboat attacks. Quick, name a an attack ad against Bush from a 527 that got that press.00
How about the ads run by the NAACP against Bush in 2000?

The ones with the chains being dragged behind the truck.

We could also talk about the media running the report about Bush's 20 year old DUI right before the 2000 election.

Or the CBS story based on fake documents right before the 2004 election.

The Democrats don't need 527's when they have people like Dan Rather willing to run reports based on fake memos provided by Democrat supporters.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Queasy
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.

Right or wrong, shifting your position isn't necessarily a bad thing. To stick with the same position no matter what is the epitome of stupidity. You must like that in your Presidents because Bush stubborn as fuck.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Queasy
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.
Right or wrong, shifting your position isn't necessarily a bad thing. To stick with the same position no matter what is the epitome of stupidity. You must like that in your Presidents because Bush stubborn as fuck.
Changing your mind makes sense if you have a good reason to change it.

But as you can see via every Op-Ed on the subject Obama is being hammered because his reason for changing his mind is essentially BS.

Meanwhile, Obama sticks to his position on Iraq despite the fact that nearly everything about Iraq has changed since he first stated his view.