Money and Politics

[lillibet]

I've found myself thinking a lot about Obama's decision to opt out of public financing for the general election. My reactions are fairly complex and ambivalent.

• I think it's definitely the smart thing to do and will undoubtedly help him to win, which I want to happen.
• His description of the public financing system as "broken" seems pretty accurate to me. Certainly the FEC is pretty much non-functional these days and entirely unable to enforce the rules, or McCain would not be able to cheat in the ways that he is. And I'd certainly rather have him simply opt out than game the system like they usually do.
• Obama seems to be trying to discourage 527s from raising money and working to defeat McCain, which I think is probably laudable, and focuses his fund-raising on small donations, which is great.
• I don't have any problem with Obama breaking a promise, as this decision is being characterized by many. Politicians should be flexible and adapt to changing circumstances. Allowing themselves to be bound by foolish promises is not what I want in a leader and people should not base their votes on campaign promises. His lack of idealism is actually encouraging to me--I feared he was too naive for the job.
• I find it fairly amusing watching the GOP whining about the Dems being able to raise more money than they can. They certainly didn't waste any tears for us when the situation was reversed.
• I like the idea of public financing, of all the candidates playing on a level monetary field.
• I don't like the idea of whoever can get the most money winning. I am not that big a fan of the market, I didn't like it when it was the GOP winning and I don't like it now.

Anyone have other points to add, or compelling arguments as to why this is a simpler good than I can see?

Comments

[dpolicar]

Pretty much agree with all this. Would prefer a candidate who didn't make the promise in the first place to one who makes and breaks it, all things considered -- though a lot depends on what underlay the promise, and what changed in between -- but this particular issue falls well beneath my "I'd care if the other side did it" threshold.

[ceo]

Thing is. Obama didn't promise to use public financing. He said that he would aggressively pursue an agreement to do so with the McCain campaign, and did pursue it, but they were unable to reach an agreement that left both campaigns on a reasonably level playing field wrt the RNC, 527 groups etc. And given the unlimited funds that those groups can raise, to unilaterally disarm would have been suicidal. Fortunately, his small-dollar fundraising prowess enables him to make a convincing case that opting out actually gives more influence to the individual voters, not less.

(Although it has been pointed out that the Republican 527s and major fundraisers are remarkably lukewarm about McCain, so they might not have been the unstoppable juggernaut they've been in previous elections in any case.)

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Yes, I understand that. I was heading off anyone who is convinced by the soundbites that say otherwise.

[sethg]

The other loophole, aside from 527s, is party committees. You can only give up to $2,300 per election to a Presidential candidate, but you can give up to $28,500 per year to a national party committee and up to $10,000 per year to sub-national comittees.

So McCain set up a joint fund to which you can donate up to $70,000--the first $2,300 goes to the McCain campaign, the next $28,500 goes to the RNC, and everything else gets split up among the state Republican committees for Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and New Mexico. I don't think the party committees can use those funds directly to support McCain or oppose Obama, but they certainly can use it to run advertisements telling the voters how much Democrats suck.

[melted-snowball.livejournal.com]

I'm really out of touch on this sort of thing, since it's complicated and, well, I have a whole 'nother political system to get used to.

But there continues to be a huge part of me that really doesn't agree with the second-to-last point, largely because, well, it seems weird to me to tell me that I can't spend $1M on taking out ads saying that people should vote for Obama if that's what I want to do with my money. My sense has always been that political speech is among the most important kind to protect, and so restricting it always makes me uncomfortable.

Amusingly, here in Canada, the restrictions are much, much more severe. But one advantage is that elections tend to be only 1-month-long events, called when a confidence vote fails or the Government decides it's expedient to have one. So that helps.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

elections tend to be only 1-month-long events

I miss that so much from England! I think it has its drawbacks, but it was so much easier to deal with. There are a lot of ways in which I think the Brits have it good and one is that their political leadership get to focus on governing, without having to play Head of State or Permanent Candidate.

[sethg]

ISTM that Obama is using his fund-raising power to build up a national political machine. On the one hand, given how deeply entrenched Republican rule has become over the last thirty years, the Democrats need something very powerful to compete effectively. On the other hand, in the hands of a different Democratic politician, I might not be so happy with a powerful national political machine; I hope that the same populist movement that made Obama what he is can also unmake him (or his successor) when the need arises.