In their lead editorial today, The Wall Street Journal echoes one of John McCain's favorite new talking points: by not committing to public financing for the general election, Barack Obama is a flip-flopper:
Mr. Obama once said he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." Mr. McCain has already taken steps toward public financing in the general election. So now Mr. Obama wants to preserve his reputation as a reformer while exploiting his new financial advantage. We are all beginning to learn how expansive the meaning of "change" is.
Technically, as a good-government presidential underdog, Obama did initially indicate interest in taking public funds. And he can rightfully be described as backtracking now. But the McCain camp and the Journal distort the reasons for Obama's apparent shift on public financing, attempting to paint him as an unprincipled political opportunist. And the Journal misrepresents reformers' critique of the campaign finance system to fit this argument:
The reformers' agenda has always been to limit "the influence of money" in politics, and do so by capping the amount candidates can spend. This naturally appealed to Mr. Obama when he was the underdog. But now that he's top dog, standing on principle isn't as appealing as the prospect of a colossal war chest.
The amount of money spent on elections in part spurred the campaign finance reform movement, but in many ways it was a secondary concern. Reformers were most interested in restoring small-d democracy. Before the rise of the Internet, skyrocketing election costs worried reformers only because candidates began raising most of their money from corporate interests, not because spending money on one's campaign was some mammoth threat to the republic.
But the way in which Obama has generated capital is astonishing and is obviously the reason for his apparent decision to forgo public financing. Over 1.3 million people have donated to his campaign. Half of his contributions are less than $200, compared with a third of Clinton's and a quarter of McCain's. While the "bundlers" are certainly still a factor, the Obama campaign has really created a "parallel public financing system," -- one that couldn't possibly have been anticipated before this election.
(More after the jump ...)
Criticizing Obama for wanting to capitalize on the support he's received from an engaged electorate is a desperate and cynical maneuver. McCain wants easy political points (Obama is a hypocrite!) and an even playing field (despite the clear contrast in enthusiasm between the two parties). It has nothing to do with expanding political participation or ensuring good government.
None of this is to suggest that the public financing system should be thrown by the wayside. To the contrary, it's quite necessary. But the emphasis on Obama is misplaced. Te-Ping Chen makes the case at The Nation:
It's really Congress that should be the locus of concern over the influence of money in politics. And when it comes to Congressional fundraising, in recent years, large-donor clout has in fact steadily calcified. In the current race, for example, Democratic Senate challengers have raised only 20% of total funds from small donors; for Democratic incumbents, that figure scrapes the barrel still further at 6%.
Of course, Dick Durbin's Senate bill addresses this problem. And guess who signed on as a co-sponsor? I'll give you a hint. It's not a senator from Arizona.
Post new comment