How Obama Might Dance Away from His Public Financing Pledge
I noted the other day that Barack Obama made a pledge that if John McCain is the nominee and accepts public financing, Obama will do the same — a pledge that Obama may come to regret, as the concomitant spending caps would require him to forego a significant fundraising advantage.
Via Kevin Drum we see Paul Waldman at the American Prospect suggesting a way for Obama to get out of his public financing pledge. The idea: weasel out by pointing at Republican 527s:
[Obama] can use the very well-funded Republican 527s as the lever to enable him to opt out.
The argument would go something like this: “I said I would ‘aggressively pursue an agreement to preserve a publicly financed election’ with my Republican opponent. And I’m happy to have our two campaigns sit down and see if there is a way to make the debate between me and John McCain, within the publicly financed system. But as long as there are ‘independent’ Republican groups out there planning on spending hundreds of millions of dollars attacking me, it would be pretty foolish to lock myself into a spending limit that makes it impossible to respond. So I ask Senator McCain: Can you call off the right-wing hit squad? If you can do that, I’ll be only too happy to say we should both accept public financing. But if you can’t, I’m not going to sign away my ability to compete.”
To their credit, many of the commenters see this as the dishonest dodge that it is. But one notes that the Messiah might be thinking about using it. Obama has a piece in USA Today that sounds an awful lot like the prevaricating nonsense that Waldman suggests for Obama:
I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.
McCain replies that this is “Washington doublespeak” — either make the pledge or don’t. He has a point. And even Drum concedes: “For the record, I think Obama made a pretty clear promise to accept public financing in the general election as long as McCain did likewise, and the 527 dodge is just that: a dodge.”
But, Drum says, if Obama is going to renege on his deal, he needs to do it now: “If McCain tries to bring it up later, Obama can then wave it off as old news, a tactic that has almost a 100% success record with the mainstream media.”
Well, now, Kevin. That just works for Democrats! If you’re a Rethuglican, a 19-year-old scandal can be resurrected on the flimsiest of pretexts.
I don’t think Senator Obama has much to worry about, however he handles it. As you can see from this L.A. Times piece (as well as the NYT McCain non-story I just linked), Big Media has Obama’s back. He can wave it off whether he deals with it now — or later.
Right. Might want to check the math on that one.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/21/2008 @ 5:08 amI can’t help but wonder if anyone at the NYT has heard the name Larry Sinclair. It would seem that they haven’t.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/21/2008 @ 5:10 amIf McCain were to give instructions to 527s to back off wouldn’t that be illegally coordinating the activities of those groups with the campaign?
By law aren’t the 527s completely separate from the official campaign organization?
Does Barack expect to be able to control the well funded 527s on the left?
Stephen Macklin (f552f7) — 2/21/2008 @ 5:15 amI think by “change” and “hope” Obama means, “I can change my positions and promises at any time in the firm hope that most people won’t notice or care.”
MarkJ (8ac3d8) — 2/21/2008 @ 5:16 amFrom Kevin Drum’s post,
Now what scandal is a “19-year-old scandal” Patterico?
The point of highlighting the older scandal is to point out that it is still going on today. McCain still hasn’t learned anything from his past mistakes.
But it’s all the media’s fault anyway, isn’t it? We can always shoot the messenger.
Psyberian (d18acc) — 2/21/2008 @ 5:19 amWhat is still going on, Psyberian?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/21/2008 @ 5:25 amI believe the “19 year old scandal” Patterico referred to is Keating, which was a real scandal. The lobbyist/girlfriend is nothing more dirty-minded imaginings. As for Sinclair, it would indeed be a shameful day in America if we were to indict Obama on the word of such a slime.
nk (798403) — 2/21/2008 @ 5:27 am*nothing more than dirty-minded imaginings*
nk (798403) — 2/21/2008 @ 5:28 amnk, as it stands, the Sinclair story isn’t much of a story. But that may be about to change.
The aspect I’m most impressed with at this point is the MSM blaring this McCain nothingness while remaining silent on the Obama allegations.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/21/2008 @ 5:43 amAn election with 527’s is not a publicly financed election. People can work hard at stopping them, but I don’t think they will.
stef (e4ad57) — 2/21/2008 @ 6:52 amRemind me how cheaters cheating differs from citizens exercising their free-speech rights. Unwittingly, McCain and Obama each get to the elephant in the public-financing living room. To make any sense, there must be clear-cut practical and legal definitions of what a campaign is, and how it can be reliably distinguished from people having their say. Whether by talking in a coffee shop, blogging, buying column-inches in the paper, or banding together with like-minded folks to produce a TV commercial.
McCain-Feingold took a bad situation and made it worse; after all, who likes protecting cheating cheaters or lying liars? Obama may indeed be weaseling out of his commitment to submit to public financing, but it’s a bogus system that inherently invites abuse. And McCain deserves much of the credit, if that’s the word, for its current implementation.
I wish I could suggest a way to restrain the importance of big money in politics, while honoring the spirit of the First Amendment. Meanwhile, I’ll recall that old neglected saw, “First, do no harm.”
AMac (c822c9) — 2/21/2008 @ 6:59 amJeff Jarvis lets the elephant – or I should say donkey – out of the bag about Omamaphilia among journalists
Media have an Obama problem they’re going to have to grapple with now or after the election: They love him. They hate Hillary. And the gap between the two is clearly seen in coverage, which surely is having an impact on the election.
This, to me, only gives more weight to the argument that journalists should be disclosing their allegiances and votes. Reporters are not just covering the story. This year, they are part of the story. The ethic of transparency that I have learned online and that journalists apply to everyone they cover should also apply to them. I say that journalists have a responsibility to reveal their own views and votes — even as they endeavor to report apart from them with fairness, completeness, accuracy, and intellectual honesty — and we have a right to judge their success or failure accordingly as we also have a right to judge their roles in the stories they are covering. . .
Bradley J Fikes (1c6fc4) — 2/21/2008 @ 7:04 amI’d say McCain’s devotion to public financing speaks for itself.
Andrew J. Lazarus (f34dce) — 2/21/2008 @ 8:11 amObama will come to regret many decisions, as every candidate does. We are now moving out of the courtship phase and into the actual marriage phase of the contest.
I still think McCain will wipe the floor with him in debates. It will be a mature war hero versus a cute lefty law prof. Shock and awe.
Patricia (f56a97) — 2/21/2008 @ 8:12 amWhoa, the LAT has an article today very negative (and true) article about Michelle Obama. Even a clock is right twice a day…
article
Patricia (f56a97) — 2/21/2008 @ 8:19 amI thought Obama was a sucker to take this pledge (or just shortsighted) but maybe the idea was to use the issue to bring up 527’s and try to somehow make John McCain or the Republican party out as the party that uses their money and influence to cheat on an agreement (and by extension on all agreements)??? Or attack any 527 attack ads as “cheating” by moneyed interests(as above comments suggest is already being brung up, as if John McCain or the Republicans can control those ads) and not as free speech. Would all those pro-Obama U-tube spots made up by kids in college count as “cheating” then?
EdWood (c2268a) — 2/21/2008 @ 10:00 amHow is this even an issue? I doubt it will convince any of the McCain haters or independents to throw in with McCain. I know I’m still looking forward to voting against him.
Nash (657d6d) — 2/21/2008 @ 11:19 amNash – it might be enough to sway some independents, which will matter in this race.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/21/2008 @ 11:26 amhttp://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=a58EAq_aGD.Q
For those who can stomach the possibility that Moran, Matthews, or Paul Krugman might just have some objectity left in them.
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 2/21/2008 @ 11:55 amshould have read objectivity not objectity
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 2/21/2008 @ 11:55 amYou mean MAKE this pledge. McCain didn’t trick him into anything…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 2/21/2008 @ 12:02 pm#21 – woops, yes that’s what I meant. Make the pledge.
EdWood (c2268a) — 2/21/2008 @ 1:14 pmImpossible. In order to have some objectivity left, one had to have some to begin with. None of the above referenced people do. The only question with them is a matter of degrees.
JD (a03f4c) — 2/21/2008 @ 4:51 pm“I still think McCain will wipe the floor with him in debates. It will be a mature war hero versus a cute lefty law prof. Shock and awe.”
In a once reasonably sane world, yes.
But now I don’t think I can give the voting public the benefit of the doubt because even blowing his nose brings Obama applause.
“DALLAS – It’s probably safe to say that you have arrived as a politician when your audience applauds when you blow your nose.
Yes, just a day before a debate in Texas, Sen. Barack Obama has a head cold.
And about a half-hour into a speech here, the Illinois Democrat announced that he had to take a quick break. “Gotta blow my nose here for a second,” Obama said.
Out came a Kleenex (or perhaps it was a hankie), and he wiped his nose.
The near-capacity audience at the Reunion Arena, which his campaign said totaled 17,000, broke out in a slightly awkward applause.
Despite the cold, Obama’s voice seems as strong as ever. He has a light schedule today and some time to rest up before his debate Thursday evening with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/even_blowing_his_nose_obama_ge.html
Dana (2939b3) — 2/21/2008 @ 5:47 pmI feel more confident than that, Dana, because right now Obama is too cool for school. He’s in his own milieu. Wait till he meets Dad.
Patricia (f56a97) — 2/21/2008 @ 10:36 pmHere is the real reason MaCain is going to need all that extra non-gov. campaign money
better go to You Tube and see the new corrido
Viva Obama!
Debate shmebate, McCain doesn’t stand a chance without mariachis in his corner… which is as it should be in a just universe.
Viva los conjuntos Mariachi!
EdWood (c2268a) — 2/22/2008 @ 7:57 am