Obama's “parallel public financing system”

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Bull**** Imran. I'm just telling you his argument. You obviously don't understand it or something. Obama is saying that the way his campaign was financed "injected democracy" into the process. How the hell is that doublespeak?

His argument is bull****, because the public financing of campaigns isn't to "inject democracy" into the process. Besides, one can argue that Senator Clinton and Senator McCain have injected just as much democracy. PAC money for both is a miniscule amount of what they've raised to date.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
His argument is bull****, because the public financing of campaigns isn't to "inject democracy" into the process.

That's a very strange claim. The purpose of the election is to elect a president democratically. That's very strange to say that the purpose of public finance isn't to make the election more democratic. At any rate, accusing Obama of bull****ing isn't the same as accusing him of doublespeak. Accusing him of doublespeak because you don't like his opinion sure is though.

Besides, one can argue that Senator Clinton and Senator McCain have injected just as much democracy. PAC money for both is a miniscule amount of what they've raised to date.

Exactly his point. Financing is different now, so there is no need for public finance.

[Ramo]

The argument he's making is that he's being funded by average people. For example, last month his average contribution was less than $100.

The argument's disingenuous to some extent - he never shouldn't made that dumb promise to "aggressively pursue" public financing, but it's a hell of a lot more compelling an excuse than McCain's for why he's not bound to the public limit for the primary.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
1. I'm pretty sure that has to do with a different loan. Source, please.

McCain's campaign is asserting different collateral was pledged for the loan. No one has come forward with proof of any kind on either said.

2. And for the third time, the most straightforward legal issue here has to do with his using public financing to get ballot access in OH and other states (and ballot access can get very expensive).

In Ohio and Delware, you just have to qualify for public matching funds. It does not mean you have to take the money (and if you don't take the money, FEC regs say you can leave the system). Is it shady? A bit... doesn't make it illegal though.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo
The argument's disingenuous to some extent - he never shouldn't made that dumb promise to "aggressively pursue" public financing, but it's a hell of a lot more compelling an excuse than McCain's for why he's not bound to the public limit for the primary.

Agreed. He's guilty of the much lessor crimes of changing his mind and making stupid promises in the first place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Exactly his point. Financing is different now, so there is no need for public finance.

That's not the tune he was saying before when he said he'd take public financing if his opponent was and strongly urged that outcome.

Now he's making money hand over first... well, its a "parallel public financing system"... yeaaaah.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Exactly his point. Financing is different now, so there is no need for public finance.

That's not the tune he was saying before when he said he'd take public financing if his opponent was and strongly urged that outcome.

Now he's making money hand over first... well, its a "parallel public financing system"... yeaaaah.

If he had simply raised more money and then changed his mind I would see your concern. But since he raised money from more contributors he has a valid point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If he had simply raised more money and then changed his mind I would see your concern. But since he raised money from more contributors he has a valid point.

He did simply raise more money and changed his money. The contributors identity is really irrelevent. If he had all those contributors but was raising far less (say, they were giving less, or contributors from various companies weren't giving to him), he wouldn't be pulling this BS.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


He did simply raise more money and changed his money. The contributors identity is really irrelevent.

It's irrelevent that more people contributed to his campaign than the other candidates and if he accepts public finance that McBush will accually have more funds than he does? It's irrelevent that more regular guys contributed to his campaign instead of rich people?

If he had all those contributors but was raising far less (say, they were giving less, or contributors from various companies weren't giving to him), he wouldn't be pulling this BS.

Now that's irrelevent. Of course not. He is trying to win after all. The issue is whether or not he has a valid reason for opting out or not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if he accepts public finance that McBush will accually have more funds than he does?

How so?

It's irrelevent that more regular guys contributed to his campaign instead of rich people?

On deciding on whether to go with public finance or make some bull**** up as to why he won't? Yes. It's irrelevent.

The issue is whether or not he has a valid reason for opting out or not.

He doesn't, aside from he wants to be able to raise the most money... but that flys into the face of all his previous rhetoric... politics as usual.

[Ramo]

McCain's campaign is asserting different collateral was pledged for the loan. No one has come forward with proof of any kind on either said.

The Republican Chair of the FEC thinks that there are issues with the loan. But I guess that's how mavericks roll...

In Ohio and Delware, you just have to qualify for public matching funds. It does not mean you have to take the money (and if you don't take the money, FEC regs say you can leave the system). Is it shady? A bit... doesn't make it illegal though.

So everyone can fake being in the public system in lieu of spending money to get on state ballots, and then withdraw. A bit shady?

[Kuciwalker]

Sounds perfectly reasonable, actually. If someone qualifies for public campaign funding, they probably ought to be on the ballot.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

if he accepts public finance that McBush will accually have more funds than he does?

How so?

The RNC will make the difference.

It's irrelevent that more regular guys contributed to his campaign instead of rich people?

On deciding on whether to go with public finance or make some bull**** up as to why he won't? Yes. It's irrelevent.

The issue is whether or not he has a valid reason for opting out or not.

He doesn't, aside from he wants to be able to raise the most money... but that flys into the face of all his previous rhetoric... politics as usual.

I don't see this a politics as usual. I guess I don't really understand what you mean by that. You don't agree with his opinion. I gather that. But politics as usual doesn't just mean you have a different opinion.

[Ramo]

Sounds perfectly reasonable, actually. If someone qualifies for public campaign funding, they probably ought to be on the ballot.

Getting on the ballot can be an expensive process. Everyone not in the public system had to devote money and time to get the requisite signatures. McCain used the public system to get out of that.

[Ramo]

I should add that, loan and ballot access aside, the FEC Chair says that McCain can't even withdraw from public financing without FEC approval. That hasn't happened, and McCain is ignoring inquiries coming from the Chair.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/FECtoMcCain.PDF