Obama's “parallel public financing system”

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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.

Shrug. So? Why should he go to all that effort to get on the ballot when there's an easier way, particularly since it's obvious he ought to be on it?

[Ramo]

Are you asking why people might consider gaining a financial advantage over your opponents by pretending to be in the public system to be unethical?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The RNC will make the difference.

DNC has more money this election cycle, IIRC.

I don't see this a politics as usual. I guess I don't really understand what you mean by that.

He's going back on campaign pledges and acting like a regular politician instead of implying he'd be a different kind of pol.

FEC Chair says that McCain can't even withdraw from public financing without FEC approval.

Conveniently the FEC can't rule on it because of quorum problems, so the FEC wants him trapped in it. I don't think that was how it was supposed to work.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ramo
Are you asking why people might consider gaining a financial advantage over your opponents by pretending to be in the public system to be unethical?

I think he's saying that the rules say you must QUALIFY for the system, not actually be IN the system, because the purpose of the 'get-on-the-ballot' laws is to make it so that every Tom Dick and Harry doesn't try to get on the ballot, but only serious candidates. Since the rules for qualifying for public financing exist to make it so only serious candidates qualify, they seem like a good rule to use to limit ballot access also, whether or not financing actually exists...

[DanS]

Obama's public financing claim is ridiculous, but I award McCain no points for abiding by a stupid campaign financing system for which he was one of the prime drivers.

[Ramo]

Conveniently the FEC can't rule on it because of quorum problems, so the FEC wants him trapped in it. I don't think that was how it was supposed to work.

The issue is not "how it's supposed to work" (if that's the case, he's ****ed in terms of loan collateral and ballot access), but what the law and precedent actually say.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The purpose of political process is to elect the most popular candidate.

Popularity can be bought in all sorts of ways, you know.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo

Conveniently the FEC can't rule on it because of quorum problems, so the FEC wants him trapped in it. I don't think that was how it was supposed to work.

The issue is not "how it's supposed to work" (if that's the case, he's ****ed in terms of loan collateral and ballot access), but what the law and precedent actually say.

I'm thinking McCain, if he took this to court, would have a very good argument against not being stuck in the system when the FEC can't even rule either which way.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Are you asking why people might consider gaining a financial advantage over your opponents by pretending to be in the public system to be unethical?

The "advantage" consists of not doing something other people shouldn't have to do either. I don't see it as a big problem.

Honestly, Ramo. Forest, trees, etc. Presumably all the expense and hard work to get on the ballot is there so that only real candidates make it. Presumably those states decided "if the FEC thinks you're enough of a real candidate to qualify for public financing, we don't need you to go to all that effort to prove it to us as well". So McCain qualified for public financing and used that to get on the ballot in those states. Even if he doesn't take the public financing, he hasn't invalidated the logic of putting him on the ballot. The system is working just fine.

[Ramo]

I think he's saying that the rules say you must QUALIFY for the system, not actually be IN the system, because the purpose of the 'get-on-the-ballot' laws is to make it so that every Tom Dick and Harry doesn't try to get on the ballot, but only serious candidates. Since the rules for qualifying for public financing exist to make it so only serious candidates qualify, they seem like a good rule to use to limit ballot access also, whether or not financing actually exists...

The basic issue is the asymmetry between ballot access qualifications and public financing qualifications. To qualify for public financing, all you need to do is raise ~$100,000 across 20 states. Candidates have spent upwards of $1 million just to get ballot access during this campaign. In other words, to get on the ballot without public financing takes a far more serious candidate than with. It seems likely that this was also intended specifically to help out campaigns that are publicly financed. A cash-strapped campaign like McCain's gets a huge boost by not having to go through the standard ballot qualifications. But I'll concede that the law may be debatable in this instance...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Popularity can be bought in all sorts of ways, you know.

Why do you hate grassroots campaign financing?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
The basic issue is the asymmetry between ballot access qualifications and public financing qualifications. To qualify for public financing, all you need to do is raise ~$100,000 across 20 states. Candidates have spent upwards of $1 million just to get ballot access during this campaign. In other words, to get on the ballot without public financing takes a far more serious candidate than with.

Noooo, to get on the ballot without qualifying for public financing. An act distinct from actually taking public financing.

[Ramo]

Yep, that's what I meant: In other words, to get on the ballot without qualifying for public financing takes a far more serious candidate than with.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by 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.

IMHO, "politics as usual" would be accepting money from fat-cat doners and special-interest groups. For example, JFK ran his presidential campaign on contributions from only 2,400 doners.

Obama's turning to small doners diversifies the doner base and takes the tacit quid-pro-quo out of campaign finance.

To call it "paralle public financing" is a little self serving: "My doners are the public; yours are not "

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
To call it "paralle public financing" is a little self serving: "My doners are the public; yours are not "

That's not what he said or meant. He simply has more donors.