Obama's “parallel public financing system”

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/politics/10campaign.html

Mr. Obama, who has shattered fund-raising records for candidates of either party, is sending fresh signals that he may bypass public financing for the general election. He argues that his small contributors, many of whom have given again and again over the Internet, have injected a new democracy into fund-raising, with the result that a kind of “parallel public financing system” has been created.

In his remarks, Mr. Obama told donors in Washington: “We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign, they can get on the Internet and finance it. And they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.”

Are you ****ing kidding me? Talk about "politics as usual". Can he even give those exhortations against "politics as usual" with a straight face ever again?

[DRoseDARs]

As long as he doesn't enter into any agreements with McCain's campaign regarding financing during the general election. I mean come on, Johnny Boy violated HIS OWN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW. Obama can tell McCain to go f*ck himself.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I mean come on, Johnny Boy violated HIS OWN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW.

Actually he didn't.

If McCain goes with public financing (which it seems more and more likely he will) and returns the money that went over the limit to donors, he'll be completely, 100% in the clear.

[Kidlicious]

I don't see the problem. Obama is a special candidate, unlike McBush.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Special" as in riding the short bus?

[Dinner]

I'm unclear. What exactly are you alleging? Obama never signed up for public funding so what?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obama's the one who's campaign as being against "politics as usual". He pledged that he'd take public funding if his opponent did in the general election. Now he's backing away from it, using the worst sort of bull**** ("parallel public financing system")... ie, politics as usual.

[Kidlicious]

Do you have proof that his reasoning is bull****?

[Arrian]

Without examining it in any depth, "parellel public financing system" sure sounds like doublespeak.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Do you have proof that his reasoning is bull****?

Because it really isn't "parallel public financing". Public financing is, by definition, government funded. Furthermore, the intention isn't necessarily to prevent rich people and "monied interests" from controlling too much of the process, but rather to eliminate the inherant advantages of having far greater amounts of money than your competitor in a campaign... to equal out the money advantage.

In other words, it's complete bull**** to anyone who hasn't been drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because it really isn't "parallel public financing". Public financing is, by definition, government funded.

Hence he said a "kind of" parallel public financing system. In other words, the way his campaign has been financed is kind of like public financing because it hasn't been financed by special interests but the public in general.

Furthermore, the intention isn't necessarily to prevent rich people and "monied interests" from controlling too much of the process, but rather to eliminate the inherant advantages of having far greater amounts of money than your competitor in a campaign... to equal out the money advantage.

Really? I see no problem with having more money than your competitor if that money has come from the public in general and not just the rich and powerfull or special interests.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Hence he said a "kind of" parallel public financing system. In other words, the way his campaign has been financed is kind of like public financing because it hasn't been financed by special interests but the public in general.

Which is basically like doublespeak bull****. Obama's campaign has recieved plenty of money from people connected to big businesses, lobbying firms, etc. Its the same way that the Clinton campaign has been "financed by lobbyists". With donation limits the way they are, no candidate can be "financed by special interests" as they could in the past (and especially not now, before party soft money is utilized).

Really? I see no problem with having more money than your competitor if that money has come from the public in general and not just the rich and powerfull or special interests.

One of the reasons for public financing is to eliminate vast disparities in spending ability among the candidates so all candidates in the system have a roughly equal ability to be heard and give the voters a fair choice.

[Ramo]

Actually he didn't.

If McCain goes with public financing (which it seems more and more likely he will) and returns the money that went over the limit to donors, he'll be completely, 100% in the clear.

Yes, he did. He already broke the public financing spending limit for the primary by several mils (after milking the public system for loan collateral and ballot access).

McCain has absolutely no room to criticize Obama here...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yes, he did. He already broke the public financing spending limit for the primary by several mils (after milking the public system for loan collateral and ballot access).

McCain has absolutely no room to criticize Obama here...

And if he gives the money back, he's entirely in the clear. That's how the system works and every year you have candidates who give money back to donors to stay on the proper side, while straddling the line.

And IIRC, the issue is whether McCain raised more than the limit, not if he spent more than the limit.

[Ramo]

No, he's not. It's a spending limit. It doesn't work that way.