Money and Politics
Jun. 21st, 2008 10:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lillibetI'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?
• 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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-22 01:37 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-22 03:02 pm (UTC)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.