Obama '08?

Today's New York Times reflects on Obama's decision to forego public financing, on how this decision threatens the survival of the public financing system, and on how it will increase the dependance of the political process on special interest money.

But the use of the Internet to raise campaign money at least plays into the spirit of campaign finance reform, some analysts said, and possibly does more to rein in the influence of big donors and special interests than 30 years of restrictions imposed by federal law.

Bull. He has chosen not to tie one arm behind his back, at a time when the opponent has clearly violated the rules.

George and Thomas, where is your criticism of McCain, who is currently also in violation of the campaign finance law - with his own name on it?

Cycloptichorn

It doesn't say it will increase the dependence of the political process on special interest money. In fact, it says the opposite.

George and Thomas, where is your criticism of McCain, who is currently also in violation of the campaign finance law - with his own name on it?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bull. He has chosen not to tie one arm behind his back, at a time when the opponent has clearly violated the rules.

George and Thomas, where is your criticism of McCain, who is currently also in violation of the campaign finance law - with his own name on it?

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo, It's not about the "other" side breaking the rules; he broke his own rule.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

George and Thomas, where is your criticism of McCain, who is currently also in violation of the campaign finance law - with his own name on it?

Says who?

Cyclo, Some people trust Obama to be straight-forward and ethical in the running of his campaign - even though it's "politics as usual." It's called ethics and trust; say something we can believe in - then turn around and change it in the future when situations change - to your own benefit.

I've not been a Obama supporter, so I'm just speaking rhetorically.

Oh, only the chair of the FEC

I can't find the statement that he made which he went back on. He never promised to accept public financing, he promised to try and make a deal with McCain over it.

I don't see where this letter says McCain violated campaign finance law. I only see it asking his campaign for clarifications.

The Commission stated that it would withdraw a candidate's certification upon request, thus agreeing to rescind the contract, so long as the candidate: 1) has not received Matching Payment Program funds, and 2) had not pledged the certification of Matching Payment Program funds as "security for private financing."

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I can't find the statement that he made which he went back on. He never promised to accept public financing, he promised to try and make a deal with McCain over it.

It appears he broke that promise too. The McCain campaign said Obama never approached them about the issue, and the Obama campaign didn't respond that he did.

Obama Camp: We Opted Out Of Public Financing Because McCain Won't Discuss Reining In 527s
By Eric Kleefeld - June 19, 2008, 8:01PM

So, did the Obama campaign decide to opt out of public financing because their offers to negotiate with the McCain camp over restricting outside ad spending were rebuffed?

That's what the Obama campaign's top legal adviser claimed in a conference call a few moments ago, as the skirmishing over Obama's decision dragged into the evening.

Chief legal counsel Bob Bauer insisted that he'd communicated their concerns at his meeting with McCain counsel Trevor Potter. Instead, Bauer says, Potter never answered their concerns -- and added that McCain has actually tacitly encouraged such 527s to gear up and go after Obama.

"It seems to me that if we scheduled this discussion," Bauer said, "and we put forward our concerns, and we heard nothing back, nor anything in the meeting that could in any way suggest that fruitful exchanges were productive, it isn't clear to me that the McCain campaign is in the position to accuse us of failing to negotiate."

The latter is exactly what McCain did;

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The latter is exactly what McCain did;

Then why is there no statement in the letter to the effect of "Mr. McCain, you broke the law"?

Chief legal counsel Bob Bauer insisted that he'd communicated their concerns at his meeting with McCain counsel Trevor Potter. Instead, Bauer says, Potter never answered their concerns -- and added that McCain has actually tacitly encouraged such 527s to gear up and go after Obama.

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The latter is exactly what McCain did;

Then why is there no statement in the letter to the effect of "Mr. McCain, you broke the law"?

Why do letters written from Congress to the Executive branch not come out and say 'you are a bunch of lying crooks?' This is politics, Thomas. There's no profit in sending such a letter. The request for clarification is exactly akin to Congressional 'requests for clarification'; a polite way to say that someone is either lying or breaking the rules.

Cycloptichorn