The Candidates
Featured Archives
The always thought-provoking AllahPundit has replied to my two posts on the emerging spat behind Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama on publicly financing the general election. If you haven’t already, I’d suggest reading my first and second post, then reading Allah’s reply.
Ok, now that that’s done I want to take his reply point by point:
Did the Messiah promise not to do any fundraising for the general election by accepting public funds? Given the difference between the cap on public money – around $85 million – and the kind of bank he can expect to make if he opts out, that’s a huge win for Maverick in eliminating the Democrats’ fundraising advantage. McCain’s been hammering him on it all week. Which leaves Obama with five options:
1. Abide by the pledge and give up that moneybomb advantage. Not a chance.
I would agree that’s an unlikely outcome for Obama to take. After all, he has already raised more money in the primaries than any other candidate (in either party) ever. Chances are that if he made it to the general election, he would raise even more amounts of money. Yet, if he accepts public funding, he not only would be alloted a total of $85 million, but most significantly, he would be constrained to ridiculous spending caps that are determined based on the population of the state, regardless of whether its a significant electoral battleground or not. Why would he purposely kneecap himself like that? Unless, he is such a true believer in campaign finance reform that he doesn’t care that it would neutralize his biggest advantage. I’m not sold on it just yet, but I think that that’s a possibility.
2. Deny that he ever “pledged” to take public funds and weasel out of the deal. Possible.
Sure. But then McCain would run a ad hammering Obama over this statement up to the day of the general election: “Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
This seems like a minor issue that no one could possibly care about, except for us political junkies, but I think that if it’s played right by McCain, it would cut at the heart of Obama’s appeal. The great post-partisan reformer who rails against the cynical politics of Washington turns out to be a…cynical Washington politician.
3. Offer McCain an alternative deal which he’ll never accept because it plays too much to Obama’s advantages. See the “$150 contribution” proposal in LJ’s second post.
Well, I’m not exactly sure what that would entail because if Obama and McCain accept FEC funds, they will not be able to raise any additional private “hard money” funds, no matter how small the contribution is. Second, if Obama purposely tried to put a “poison pill” in the negotiations, that would also be used to great effect by the McCain campaign in ads aimed at tearing down Obama’s “good government” reputation.
4. Accept the deal and shunt the moneybombs off onto 527s
That would actually be illegal. The reason 527s are such a problem now is because they operate completely independently of a campaign. They can run issue ads on behalf of the candidate, but the money they get has to come from separate sources. If any coordination between a campaign and 527 is discovered, they immediately cease being considered 527s, and instead become part of the campaign itself. Not only that, but McCain has long said that he would denounce any ad that is aired on his behalf by a 527.
Back in December, a pro-war 527 sprung up and began running pro-McCain ads in South Carolina, which prompted a lengthy rebuke from the Senator including “…I ask all of my donors and supporters, including Mr. Reed, to cease and desist immediately from supporting any independent expenditures that might be construed as benefiting my campaign indirectly.” Obama also has taken tough stands against 527s over the past few months. I have a hard time seeing that both Obama and McCain would attack them during the primaries, yet embrace them during the general election.
5. Admit that he “pledged” but has to break his pledge now because he’s got a movement thing going that people want to be part of and, goshdarnit, it wouldn’t be fair to them to deny them the fun of donating. Weak, but still preferable to number one.
Yeah, and Obama would open up a big hole in his armor for which McCain would attack relentlessly. Obama has really boxed himself it here. Either he backtracks and takes the inevitable hits from McCain over it or he actually does take the funding which makes the general election a completely different ballgame – won that McCain would be much more likely to win.
Also: The Washington Post (that bastion of conservatism) just put up their morning editorial where they go after Obama for “waffling,” “backtracking,” and “parsing” on public financing. Like I said, this thing has the potential to be huge.
It must be tempting for a campaign that has reached dizzying new financial heights to give up the guarantee of $85 million in federal funds for the prospect of being able to rake in even more — and to get a financial edge over an opponent whose fundraising has been lackluster and whose party seems dispirited. It must be chastening to think about the financial advantage that Mr. McCain will have in the months leading up to the convention, when Mr. Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), his remaining Democratic opponent, may still be battling for the nomination while Mr. McCain is spending “primary” money to build the necessary architecture for the general election.
But this kind of backtracking and parsing isn’t what the millions of voters who have been inspired by Mr. Obama are looking for. It’s not befitting Mr. Obama’s well-earned image as a champion of reform. Instead of waffling, Mr. Obama should be pushing Ms. Clinton to go beyond her spokesman’s statements that she would “definitely consider” forgoing public financing.
Why not let the candidates raise as much cash as they can and save the taxpayers’ money? Because it’s better for voters if candidates spend more time talking to them and less time cozying up to donors. It’s better for democracy if candidates are less indebted to big bundlers who have raked in six- or seven-figure amounts for their campaigns. Mr. McCain seems to understand this. What about the Democrats?
February 16th, 2008 at 12:41 am
How is renegging on his pledge going to hurt Obama? The only people affected by a pledge are the very ones who want to give Obama money. McCain can attack Obama till he’s blue in the face, it won’t stop anyone from sending Obama checks. I mean, what Democratic donor to Obama is going to say “wait a second, Obama took back his promise not to accept my money, so I shouldn’t give him my money.” The way I see it, Obama has nothing at all to lose by taking back his pledge. The money he’ll receive from new donors will far outweigh the pittance he loses for breaking his pledge.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Another thing. . . The more McCain complains about this pledge and Obama’s broken promise, the more he’d be highlighting both Obama’s stunning fundraising successes and his own difficulty in getting campaign donations. It will be seen – correctly – as McCain whining because he can’t get money. I don’t see a good way out of this for McCain at all.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:48 am
alaska jake,
Actually, it was Obama who brought up the idea of publicly financing the general election in the first place. He was the one who sought the opinion from the FEC in February, then approached the McCain people a few days later. He then re-iterated his pledge in March and November of 2007. Then again today here in Milwaukee.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:56 am
LJ. . . Oh I realize that, but do you really think three or six months from now anyone will care about who offered the pledge? If Obama rescinds it and McCain cries “No fair!” how will McCain possibly look good there? If Obama says “I think all these millions of people should be able to send me checks” how will it look if McCain says “that’s not fair, you promised you wouldn’t take all that money.” I know this was all Obama’s idea, but no one will care in the long run, especially all those millions trying to send Obama their money.
All McCain can do is accept it, talk for a few days about Obama being just another money-grubbing politician, and then continue on with the campaign. In the end, it won’t matter.
February 16th, 2008 at 1:10 am
alaska jake,
Oh yeah, that’s certainly possible, but what it would do is give McCain a much needed opening to start defining Obama to the general electorate as “just another politician” before he has a chance to define himself. It looks like McCain is going to continue trying to bait him into responding in the press. I’m not sure Obama is experienced enough not to take the bait. After all, it was he who answered the question today.
I plan to do a write up (after I get some sleep) on the McCain speech that I attended earlier tonight. He actually spent several minutes going after Obama hard on not disclosing his $91 million worth of earmarks. He explicitly called into question Obama’s desire for government transparency and reform. It got a lot of hearty applause. If that argument sticks, McCain can broaden his attacks to the rest of Obama’s record.
But that’s key. Launching a frontal assault on his extremely liberal record will almost certainly fail because he is The Post Partisan. But if you can take that down a notch or two, then it’s a different ballgame.
February 16th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Even though it might help us this time around, I find public financing of campaigns abhorrent. It disconnects the citizenry from the Democratic process in key ways.
February 16th, 2008 at 1:42 am
5. . . I would love for McCain to hammer both Obama and Clinton on earmarks. That’s an argument McCain will win. In that context, his bringing up the pledge might have some legs. Nothing will change, but it adds more fuel to the fire and emphasizes Obama as a DC moneybags politician.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:51 am
There are two parts to this issue, the political and the practical. McCain is now seizing on the political and obviously the Wash Post sides with McCain for now. But is it practical for any candidate to agree to public financing without there being some agreement on third-party spending. Obama can make a credible argument that he needs money not to fight McCain, but the swiftboaters. Sure, his semi-pledge should mean something, but he can respond that he did not intend to enter a “suicide pact.” As McCain himself must acknowledge, campaign finance laws and agreements have a funny way of backfiring.
I believe it is a fair and honest response for Obama to seek a comprehensive agreement with McCain that covers 3d party expenditures. Perhaps it would mean going to the media and asking them not to run ads by 527’s (not likely) or to get an agreement from the media to respond to 3d party attack ads themselves.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Even though it might help us this time around, I find public financing of campaigns abhorrent. It disconnects the citizenry from the Democratic process in key ways.
I’m torn on this issue. While I understand your point, the attention paid to the “money race” over the past year has distracted significantly from the actual policy positions of the candidates. In many cases, pundits treated the quarterly financial reports as if they measured the candidates’ actual strength of support, distorting the coverage of the campaigns.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:34 am
looks likethis is what we have to look foward to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUKINg8DCUo
February 16th, 2008 at 10:52 am
This is boring. It would be more interesting to beggin to track the gubernatorial and congresional races.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
This part in the analysis is key:
This seems like a minor issue that no one could possibly care about, except for us political junkies, but I think that if it’s played right by McCain, it would cut at the heart of Obama’s appeal. The great post-partisan reformer who rails against the cynical politics of Washington turns out to be a…cynical Washington politician.
That’s the way to beat Obama. But I’m not sure the McCain camp is capable of exploiting this and other similar issues. Their only moment of brilliance in the campaign was getting Crist’s endorsement at the key moment in Florida.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Give the McCain campaign a little more credit. Focusing on NH and doing many townhalls was a good move. The best move was hitching his campaign to the surge. The flipside is that one of the many bad Romney moves was to focus so much attention on Huckabee in Iowa when McCain in NH was always the greater threat. He should have buried McCain when he had the chance.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I’m an independent, so maybe my opinion doesn’t matter much ’round here. I’d rather vote for a fiscally conservative person. Right now though, it looks like the Republicans are going to nominate McCain. This whole business about public financing really reinforces the idea that he can’t compete in a real race with Obama. Also, it’s fairly sickening for me to have a Republican try and force both campaigns to use public money, especially in a time of war and growing debt.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
James, this whole “McCain can’t compete with Obama” is what the Obama campaign wants you believe. Obama is so great, so perfect, a man of “destiny” that no one can possibly compete with him – the same sense of inevitability that Hillary used to have about her, multiplied by a thousand.
And how is McCain not fiscally conservative? I guess you can say he’s not an economic conservative, though I would disagree. But not fiscally conservative? Come on.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Andrew, how was that a moment of brilliance? The McCain camp was stunned to learn of the news from Crist, with a knock on McCain’s hotel room door, 10 minutes before the endorsement.
I can’t think of ANYTHING brilliant that has come out of the McCain camp.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Metro,
That last minute “Romney holds the same position on Iraq as Hillary” business was pretty close to brilliant.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Axel, I’d argue that McCain had no choice but to focus on small-town halls in New Hampshire. He didn’t have the money or the support to do anything else. McCain also had to tie his campaign to the surge because the other major topics of the campaign were immigration and taxes and he was on the defensive with those. Unbelievably lucky. I’ll certainly concede that Romney made some mistakes, but luck didn’t favor him like it did McCain.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
agreed Matthew. I should have said that the final four days before Florida was a good move. Granted, their strategy was to blatantly lie and distort Romney’s statements, but it worked.
February 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Matthew (17) that wasn’t brilliant, that was dirty. McCain is a liar liberal and that fact can’t be change by the lemmings.
February 16th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I always love it when the losers whine (in politics or sports) about how much better they played than the winner:
Scoreboard!
February 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
This is a VERY fascinating article about possible ramifications for an Obama/Clinton for the middle east and an interesting ending about a Vice presidential pick for McCain. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LeeCulpepper/2008/02/15/its_all_about_the_vice_president_now?page=1
February 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
*Obama/Clinton presidency
February 16th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I love how ever since the Paul campaign, everyone wants to talk about “moneybombs.”
February 20th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
[...] seems that Obama is inching closer and closer to accepting a public funding agreement. Like I said the other day, if Obama doesn’t accept it, or tries to put a “poison pill” into the [...]