Barack Obama’s decision to reject public financing for the general election was the right decision. It’s not only the best way for him to win. It’s also the most progressive stand to take, and the best way to help reform the campaign finance system. This is a broken system, and Obama will actually reduce the influence of big money in politics by refusing public financing. Obama is not breaking a promise to take public financing because he never made such a promise.
The Million Wallet March for Barack Obama by his donors has been incredibly impressive, and shattered all records. Obama has transformed campaign funding from the worst symbol of corruption in Washington to one of the best examples of a new movement for democracy.
Public financing was meant to put mild restraints on that earlier, corrupt system, and it’s largely failed to work in the presidential election. Obama shouldn’t let it stand in the way of his movement. By accepting public financing, Obama won’t halt the level of corruption in American politics; to the contrary, he’ll help to fuel it.
Back in February 2007, when Obama first asked permission from the FEC to keep open the public financing option in the general election (even though Obama would not be taking public funds in the primaries), Obama’s spokesperson Bill Burton said, We're looking to see if we can preserve the option." There was never any kind of unconditional pledge.
Early in 2007, Obama asked the FEC for permission to leave open the possibility of public financing in the general election, even though he made no promises. In his USA Today op-ed in February 2008 (matching the wording of his earlier promises), Obama wrote that he would "aggressively pursue such an agreement" for public funding.
But Obama explained that such an agreement would have to be carefully negotiated: "The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues. According to the Obama campaign, McCain’s side simply refused to take the difficult steps necessary to fulfill this condition outlined by Obama.
Even if McCain had agreed to this condition, Obama should have rejected the public financing system. Three important developments since 2007 make it impossible to embrace it.
First, John McCain violated his own campaign finance laws. McCain broke the "McCain-Feingold" law which prohibits candidates from leaving the public financing system if they use the promise of funding to secure a loan, as McCain did (he secured his $4 million loan during a critical moment of his faltering campaign by promising to use the public financing if he failed to pay it back). McCain also received free ballot access in many states because he had pledged to accept matching funds. If John McCain wouldn’t obey the campaign finance laws in the primary, why should anyone expect him to keep his word in the general election?
Second, the already dysfunctional campaign finance regulation system has broken down entirely. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has become completely non-functional, making it impossible for any Obama/McCain deal to be enforced. The FEC needs at least four commissioners to function, and only has two right now. One of the nominees, Robert Lenhard, has asked to have his nomination withdrawn because he has taken a job with a law firm. This means that Democrats would need to accept controversial conservative nominee Hans von Spakovsky to reach a minimum, which they refuse to do, or President Bush would need to appoint another nominee before the July recess, which he refuses to do. Senate Republicans have refused to allow individual votes on the nominees.
As a result the 2008 election will be like the Wild West of campaign fundraising, except that there’s no sheriff anywhere. Without a functioning FEC, it may even be impossible for Obama and McCain to receive public financing, since a majority of commissioners must formally certify the candidates who receive this money. Obama couldn’t wait for a last-minute deal to build a national fundraising campaign in the general election, so it is impossible for him to accept public funding limits in the absence of a regulatory body.
Third, presidential campaign funding is really a shell game. Presidential candidates in the past have accepted the funding, but only because they knew it wouldn’t stop the flow of money. The dollars would go to "independent" 527 groups and the political parties, which is a system far worse than donations to individual candidates because the donor limits for parties are far higher. As a result, public financing actually encourages presidential candidates to seek out the wealthy donors and ignore the masses in getting donations.
Public financing will also get in the way of Obama’s hope to build a political movement rather than just a solitary campaign. Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, has said: "You ought to be able to run a campaign for two months on $85 million." Unfortunately, $85 million in public funds for the general election is no longer sufficient to run a strong national campaign; Obama has spent three times that amount in the primaries. $85 million is barely enough for a candidate to saturate a few swing states while the rest of the country gets ignored.
By rejecting public financing, Obama can campaign nationwide, and he has promised a 50-state strategy. Under public financing, 90% of the country outside the swing states will be ignored. Without public financing, the Obama campaign has realized that setting up a campaign office in Idaho actually pays for itself from the donations of Idahoans who want to see a new kind of president. This is good for democracy, because it means more people across the country will be involved in the presidential process. And it creates the potential for Obama to win a landslide victory and help transform Congress and state offices. The public financing system would kill a 50-state strategy.
Under public funding, instead of campaigns largely controlling the campaign message, outside groups will determine the commercials seen by people (and therefore much of the media coverage about the campaign). Instead of small donors owning the campaigns, it will be the big donors who fund the national parties and "independent" 527 groups who determine the next president. The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) found that $442 million was spent by 527 groups on federal elections in 2004. Compared to that sum, which may easily exceed half a billion dollars this year, the $84.1 million in public financing is a drop in the bucket. Because of this system, public financing is actually more likely to lead to the corruption of our political process. The candidate who wins will owe an obligation to the big 527 and party donors who made victory possible, rather than the millions of Americans who will fund the campaign without public financing.
If Obama takes the public financing and is Swiftboated by Republican billionaires through 527s, he will be extremely vulnerable. Obama would have to depend on uncontrollable Democratic 527s to respond to these attacks. In essence, accepting public financing will take the control of the campaign out of the hands of the candidates and put most of the power in the hands of independent groups and the millionaires who fund them. Of course, these 527s will spend money from millionaires anyway. But without public financing, regular citizens will be able to help candidates respond to these attacks and provide a legitimate outlet for their donations.
ABC’s Jake Tapper today called Obama’s decision a "broken promise." That’s a lie. Obama’s initial desire was to follow the public financing system (which was something he had no obligation to seek), and it’s the failures in the FEC and the McCain campaign that make it impossible to do this. At best it can be said that Obama wasn’t very aggressive in fulfilling his pledge to "aggressively pursue an agreement" with McCain. However, that’s not the same as a broken promise. I called up Dennis Miller’s radio show today to challenge Tapper’s claim. Tapper dismissed my argument as "spin" and noted that groups such as Public Citizen and Democracy 21 had criticized Obama.
But these organizations have a vested interest in trying to promote public financing, and Obama’s superior approach of small donations is a threat to everything they’ve tried to do. These are not neutral observers. And the fact is, they’re wrong. Obama did not make a promise to use public financing. And it’s pure political spin for reporters to claim Obama did break his promise when McCain is the only one who violated a promise (and the law) with regard to public financing in this campaign.
Public financing won’t end the obsession with fundraising for presidential candidates. John McCain and the Republican National Committee has already set a goal of raising $120 million for this election, which would far exceed the $84.1 million in public financing set for each candidate. Because donors to the parties can give up to $28,500, the opportunities for corruption are much greater. Traditional fundraising events will largely replace the kinds of grassroots fundraising that has allowed Obama to transform the money game.
By eschewing public financing, Obama will be able to rely on small donations from a huge number of supporters. But if he accepts public funding, he’ll have to devote most of his fundraising to big-money donors, and funnel it to the Democratic National Committee.
Total public financing of elections is a mirage. It will never happen politically, and even if it did, there are too many ways for money to influence the process. Money will always flow down into politics, even if it has to go through subterranean channels of political parties and 527s. What’s needed is a public finance system that can encourage democracy rather than limit money. That can be achieved through the system of donor limits and matching funds: the taxpayers could provide politicians with a match for every donor, up to $50. The result would be a system where politicians seek out donations from the masses rather than from the elites. That’s what Obama should seek when he’s president, and this ideal of a campaign funded by the masses is precisely what Obama started today.
