Obama refuses Public Funds

[Pangloss]

I do give Obama credit for speaking up on the issue, rather than dodging it. He lost that credit when he blamed it all on Republicans and the RNC, though (as in John5746's quote above). The Dems are no better, so that was a misplaced accusation, and he's supposed to be the guy who steps above mere partisanship. None of this has any bearing on my vote, though -- I just see it is a set of minor plays in the big game, which is still in the bottom of the first inning, and none of these plays strike me as (if you all will forgive the baseball metaphors) spitballs or tarred bats. Business as usual, perhaps, but nothing worse than that.

 

It's gonna be a fun next few months. I'm actually looking forward to the fact that there will be such a massive disparity in the funding of the two campaigns. That really sets the stage for some interesting drama. Good politics. Good for the country, I don't know, but since I'm actually pretty satisfied with either man becoming president, I'm okay with that.

[ParanoiA]

So another vote for business as usual huh? I don't suppose there's any hope of getting my countrymen to stop endorsing this low expectation on the highest office in the land.

 

I'm not satisfied with either man becoming president, except that I wouldn't be depressed if it was McCain. Obama is starting to scare me now. He just seems like such a child next to McCain.

 

This is a genuine flip-flop. Hell, even the libertarian candidate is a noted flip-flopper.

 

It's going to be a long 4 years....

[Pangloss]

Well, change is a relative thing. A little bit can go a long way. Maybe the importance of Obama is the depth of change, not its breadth.

 

Dang, I guess I'm gonna have to drop my "this is the guy who represents change?!" arguments. (sigh)

[Mr Skeptic]

So another vote for business as usual huh? I don't suppose there's any hope of getting my countrymen to stop endorsing this low expectation on the highest office in the land.

 

No. Just pessimism. McCain should have enough time in politics for someone who is not me to be able to tell if he also goes back on his promises when convenient. If not, then this would be enough for me to switch my vote to him.

 

I'm not satisfied with either man becoming president, except that I wouldn't be depressed if it was McCain. Obama is starting to scare me now. He just seems like such a child next to McCain.

 

Me neither. We need to change our voting system from the first-past-the-post system.

 

This is a genuine flip-flop. Hell, even the libertarian candidate is a noted flip-flopper.

 

It's going to be a long 4 years....

 

I agree with both of those statements. Quite depressing.

[iNow]

You guys can spin the semantics as much as you like, but I can tell you that from a political perspective this story is written and it is playing in Peoria, and the perception is that Obama promised to take the public money and live with the restrictions, and he backed out of that promise.

 

I thought you'd get a kick out of this:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=174474&title=indecision-2008-finance-reform

[jryan]

Hopefully, it's also damaging to special interests running our government.

 

Actually, it could only have the opposite effect, if any. If you read the article, he mainly rejected public funds because it would have capped his ability to spend in the election... so by rejecting the public funds he is simply saying that he plans to spend more than the $84 million cap.

 

So if he took the $84 million he would have stopped taking contributions and would have been cut off from further donations. By rejecting it he can continue collecting contributions right up to the election.

 

So no, that doesn't hurt special interests at all. It just leaves the door open to them where it would have normally been closed.

[iNow]

The key factor is who gives said donations, not how much he gets overall. We'll have to wait and see, but right now the vast majority of Obama's money is coming in $20-50 chunks from regular old Joe's like you and me, and that's not exactly something I'm all that concerned about.

[john5746]

The key factor is who gives said donations, not how much he gets overall. We'll have to wait and see, but right now the vast majority of Obama's money is coming in $20-50 chunks from regular old Joe's like you and me, and that's not exactly something I'm all that concerned about.

 

That is the primary issue to me as well, but I would like to see some max limit agreed upon prior to a race. For someone to spend close to half a billion to become President is just too much, IMO.

 

Also, I could see candidates who represent the poor possibly being at a disadvantage, even with small contributions. We will see in the future when the other side prevails in the money sweepstakes

[jryan]

The key factor is who gives said donations, not how much he gets overall. We'll have to wait and see, but right now the vast majority of Obama's money is coming in $20-50 chunks from regular old Joe's like you and me, and that's not exactly something I'm all that concerned about.

 

And a good deal of those $20-$50 chunks are coming from lobbying firms that simply passed on the checks of their individuals rather than cashing them and submitting a lump sum check as they normally do. It is a parlor trick. All that Obama is doing is leaving John Q. Public's name on the check but counting on lobbyist organizations just the same.

 

 

Here is an article about his history with PAC money:

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

[john5746]

And a good deal of those $20-$50 chunks are coming from lobbying firms that simply passed on the checks of their individuals rather than cashing them and submitting a lump sum check as they normally do. It is a parlor trick. All that Obama is doing is leaving John Q. Public's name on the check but counting on lobbyist organizations just the same.

 

It's possible some of this might happen, but a "good deal" implies a significant amount - sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I doubt the press, the GOP and especially Clinton would have allowed that to go unnoticed.

[jryan]

It's possible some of this might happen, but a "good deal" implies a significant amount - sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I doubt the press, the GOP and especially Clinton would have allowed that to go unnoticed.

 

It isn't a conspiracy at all, it is simply true. It is reported quite a bit, and look for Obama to get hit with it in the upcoming election if he chooses to use the fallacy as a major selling point.

 

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/10/sb-a-little-bit-more-on-obama-1161881683

 

And here is an interesting article in the Chicago Sun Times... apparently Obama swears off PAC money, but uses his own PAC (HOPEFUND) to woo Superdeligates:

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cycle=2008

 

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/03/31/obamas-disingenuous-pac-statement.htm

 

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/03/29/obama-king-leadership-pacs.htm

 

 

And on lobbyist money in general... here is an interesting chart that monitors contributions by industries:

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cycle=2008

 

 

Also, as far as Clinton calling him on it... I don't know if you have followed her or her husbands election funds drives in the past, but she is in no place to be starting a debate on fundraising ethics.

[Pangloss]

The key factor is who gives said donations, not how much he gets overall. We'll have to wait and see, but right now the vast majority of Obama's money is coming in $20-50 chunks from regular old Joe's like you and me, and that's not exactly something I'm all that concerned about.

 

80% is the number I typically hear (I could probably find a source on that if anyone wants). That's a good number, and it is supposed to reflect the overall balance, as opposed to, say, a percentage of the number of contributors.

 

Which is an enticing statistic, though it certainly still leaves room for special interest influence.

 

Jryan is correct, by the way, about that collection method. It's very common and frequently reported-on. I don't know what percentage of Obama's money comes from that approach, but perhaps some of those links might be useful for figuring that out (especially the Open Secrets web site, which is surprisingly useful).

 

But I think it also has to be said that just because people donate money in that fashion doesn't mean the campaign is being coerced into specific policy decisions. It seems to me that such an approach is less likely to produce a policy decision that more traditional lobbying and contributing.

[jryan]

But I think it also has to be said that just because people donate money in that fashion doesn't mean the campaign is being coerced into specific policy decisions. It seems to me that such an approach is less likely to produce a policy decision that more traditional lobbying and contributing.

 

 

I would hope I never insinuated that. But the problem is that the insinuation is ramapant "Oh, politician X got money from industry Y... he's in bed with big business!".

 

My point is that just the contribution is never evidence of corruption. I was more looking for those who think Obama is a saint to maybe reconsider their demonization of the other side.

 

Another thing interesting about the OpenSecrets.org website is how little money actually comes from the industries most often dragged out as the evils of PAC money. For instance, Obama alone collected more money from the movie and music industry ($4,086,170) than the total contributions to all candidates from Big Tobacco ($348,401) and Big Oil ($3,439,404) combined.

Edited June 30, 2008 by jryan
multiple post merged

[Mr Skeptic]

My point is that just the contribution is never evidence of corruption.

 

Even without corruption, though, contributions can influence policy. An organization is likelier to donate to individuals who they believe are likely to make policy decisions it approves of. In this way, an organization can influence policy without influencing individual politicians (corruption).

 

For example, oil companies would be likely to donate to politicians who already do not believe in global warming. That would be more reliable and less dangerous than bribing a politician who believes in global warming to behave as if he didn't.

[iNow]

Too many people are focussing entirely on the amount, and also running with rampant speculations and mere personal conjectures.

 

He has vowed not to be held to the wants of these heavily financed special interests. They tend to get their way by saying, "well, if you want my million dollars, you MUST do this... if you don't, then you won't get our money."

 

We'll see if he cowers that way like most do. It remains to be seen, so IMO certainty of his "corruption" or "lies" or "sucking off the teet of of special interest money" one way or the other from either side is not yet warranted.

[jryan]

Even without corruption, though, contributions can influence policy. An organization is likelier to donate to individuals who they believe are likely to make policy decisions it approves of. In this way, an organization can influence policy without influencing individual politicians (corruption).

 

For example, oil companies would be likely to donate to politicians who already do not believe in global warming. That would be more reliable and less dangerous than bribing a politician who believes in global warming to behave as if he didn't.

 

 

Well, of course, but like you said, that isn't corruption, and Obama certainly hasn't chosen to not accept such money. He just accepts it in a way that appears to be less corrupt. Obama leads all candidates in donations from lawyers and lobbyists, so I would guess the lawyers and lobbyist think Obama is best for them?

 

Here is the breakdown for contributions to date from lawyers and lobbyists:

 

Barack Obama..$17,990,028

Hillary Clinton...$17,628,916

John Edwards...$7,924,378

John McCain.....$5,940,307

 

Has that influenced the election? And if so, what do you suppose they expect from Obama?

 

Too many people are focussing entirely on the amount, and also running with rampant speculations and mere personal conjectures.

 

He has vowed not to be held to the wants of these heavily financed special interests. They tend to get their way by saying, "well, if you want my million dollars, you MUST do this... if you don't, then you won't get our money."

 

We'll see if he cowers that way like most do. It remains to be seen, so IMO certainty of his "corruption" or "lies" or "sucking off the teet of of special interest money" one way or the other from either side is not yet warranted.

 

Ummm... EVERY POLITICIAN vows that the they won't let contributions sway them. I'm also pretty sure that McCain hasn't vowed to the public that he will honor his PAC contributors by passing laws in their favor. That you believe that Obama is telling the truth and will manage to stay above it all is not founded in any reality. It is an article of faith. And Obama choosing to pass on public funding so that he can fuel his campaign with even MORE donations indicates to me that he is already cracking under the alure of big money.

[iNow]

Here is the breakdown for contributions to date from lawyers and lobbyists:

 

Barack Obama..$17,990,028

Hillary Clinton...$17,628,916

John Edwards...$7,924,378

John McCain.....$5,940,307

Source?

 

 

Ummm... EVERY POLITICIAN vows that the they won't let contributions sway them. I'm also pretty sure that McCain hasn't vowed to the public that he will honor his PAC contributors by passing laws in their favor. That you believe that Obama is telling the truth and will manage to stay above it all is not founded in any reality. It is an article of faith.

It's also a complete misrepresentation of the position I've shared. How about you stop putting words in my mouth?

 

I said:

 

It remains to be seen, so IMO

any certainty

of his "corruption" or "lies" or "sucking off the teet of of special interest money"

one way or the other

from either side

is not yet warranted

.

 

 

 

And Obama choosing to pass on public funding so that he can fuel his campaign with even MORE donations indicates to me that he is already cracking under the alure of big money.

 

And yet, you accuse me of coming to conclusions not grounded in reality? You're a hypocrit.

[jryan]

Source?

 

You don't look at the sources I give, apparently, becauise you could have easily looked it up on opensecrets.org:

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=K

 

 

 

It's also a complete misrepresentation of the position I've shared. How about you stop putting words in my mouth?

 

I said:

 

It remains to be seen, so IMO

any certainty

of his "corruption" or "lies" or "sucking off the teet of of special interest money"

one way or the other

from either side

is not yet warranted

.

 

I quoted you whole statement, you didn't. Just befor that you said:

 

He has vowed not to be held to the wants of these heavily financed special interests. They tend to get their way by saying, "well, if you want my million dollars, you MUST do this... if you don't, then you won't get our money."

 

As I pointed out, every politician makes the same proclamation. Expecting everyone to grant Obama the benefit of the doubt, when in actuality the doubt should rest heavily on the side of "a politician will keep his word", is rather naive on your part.

 

Also, your assessment of what "special interests" say before giving out money is just plain silly. If a special interest were to give money to an elected official while saying that it would be bribery. Even when the expectation is there they will never come right out and demand it unless they are looking to a seat in the federal penitentiary.

 

And yet, you accuse me of coming to conclusions not grounded in reality? You're a hypocrit.

 

So, why would he not take the no-strings-attached public funding if not for the alure of more money and a bigger budget from fund raisers? Care to explain?

[iNow]

You don't look at the sources I give, apparently, becauise you could have easily looked it up on opensecrets.org:

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=K

 

That's a cool link. Thanks for sharing it. The primary reason I asked is because I was curious when it was last updated. Upon launching it, it said June 2, so it's relatively up to date (about one month behind).

 

 

 

I quoted you whole statement, you didn't. Just befor that you said:

 

He has vowed not to be held to the wants of these heavily financed special interests. They tend to get their way by saying, "well, if you want my million dollars, you MUST do this... if you don't, then you won't get our money."

 

As I pointed out, every politician makes the same proclamation. Expecting everyone to grant Obama the benefit of the doubt, when in actuality the doubt should rest heavily on the side of "a politician will keep his word", is rather naive on your part.

I'm still not following you. You continue attributing things to me which I never said, and I really wish you'd stop doing that. I explicitly stated that we'll have to wait and see, that neither one of us has enough information to make a proclaimation on his motivations one way or the other.

 

Exactly what part of my posts are you struggling with? I feel I've made this as clear as possible, yet you're still trying to argue against things I never said, and then you even go so far as to call me naive.

 

You're an interesting fellow. I say, "not enough information for either side to judge, we'll have to wait and see." You respond, "You're naive for insisting that Obama won't be bought off." Give me a break.

 

 

Also, your assessment of what "special interests" say before giving out money is just plain silly.

It was FAR from an assessment, so let's be real. It was a caricature, a short-hand to get my point across. Sorry I didn't type up a 76 page treatise on the dynamics of how special interests secure leverage with politicians and political candidates, but for you to try nailing me to the cross because I used some rhetorical license is pretty retarded.

 

 

If a special interest were to give money to an elected official while saying that it would be bribery. Even when the expectation is there they will never come right out and demand it unless they are looking to a seat in the federal penitentiary.

That's why they don't say it that way.

 

You clearly have no clue about how politics works if you think everyone comes out and says directly and expressly what they want. I'd suggest also that you're not too good with women if you think that's how it works.

 

 

 

So, why would he not take the no-strings-attached public funding if not for the alure of more money and a bigger budget from fund raisers? Care to explain?

 

Actually, no. I have zero desire to explain since I've made my position here quite clear to seemingly everyone but you. You're also still hypocritical for the very reason I showed in the previous post, suggesting a conclusion that is not grounded in reality, only your personal conjectures and speculations.