Obama gets started - DNC will no longer accept money from lobbyists or PAC's; all Obama fundraisers will have at least one reporter

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Not needing the funding?

You can say that at this early stage?

Who knows what awaits.

[Peikko 1,575]

Nothing is certain of course, but I don't think his internet funding strategy is about to dry up, do you?

Edited June 5, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It may not be enough. Small donors are still small donors. There's always a ceiling and until you hit it, you don't know how high (or low) it is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not certain it is possible to silence the special interest groups that way anyway. Dealing with the lobbyists and corporate interests would seem to be one of the necessary evils of the current system.

[Peikko 1,575]

And, as he hasn't issued a policy proposal, what's to say he might change his mind on this issue were funds to become somewhat scarce, hmm?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Not accepting their direct contributions doesn't "silence" them at all. It simply means they can't buy an election. Without enough small donors, it won't work.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And, as he hasn't issued a policy proposal, what's to say he might change his mind on this issue were funds to become somewhat scarce, hmm?

Well that was the reason he went back on that deal with McCain to take public funds. At the time he thought he'd need it, but when his donations went sky-high he changed his mind and went back on it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Therein lies my problem with it as some indication as proof that Barack is committed to fundamental change regarding 'doing business in Washington'. This measure is proof of nothing more than Barack doesn't need this money at this time. Bully for him.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Small, individual contributors donating money to a campaign that won't take money from PACs and lobbyists -- is a bad thing?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Small, individual contributors donating money to a campaign that won't take money from PACs and lobbyists -- is a bad thing?

Here's an old article on it from NPR. Some interesting points.

McCain Pressures Obama on Public Financing

Democrats have not even picked their presidential nominee yet, but already, Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is jostling with Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain over how to finance the fall campaign.

McCain intends to take public funds. He accuses Obama of breaking a promise to do the same. But the cash machine built by the Obama campaign may dwarf the $84 million federal grant that he would get from Washington under public financing.

A Public Financing Pact?

Public financing is a Watergate-era reform, and McCain and Obama are vying for the halo of "reformer." Under the program, a candidate takes the public funds and agrees not to raise any private money. The money comes from a check-off on federal income-tax returns. Grants are supposed to be large enough to make candidates competitive; they free up time that would otherwise be spent raising money.

McCain and Obama seemed to strike an agreement on public financing months ago. If both were nominated and one said yes, so would the other. Obama even answered in the affirmative on a questionnaire that asked if he would use public funds.

Since then, however, Obama's fundraising has shot into the stratosphere. The higher it goes, the less incentive he has to take public funds.

McCain is making the promise a campaign issue. "I made a promise to the American people that I would" take public funds, he said in a recent campaign appearance. "And he made a promise. Apparently he may not keep that."

Obama prefers to talk about a different promise: to change Washington. It's a central theme of his campaign. He makes a point of not accepting contributions from federally registered lobbyists, and at a fundraiser in Washington this week, he said lobbyists with lots of campaign cash should not have so much influence.

"I don't love the way they dictate the agenda in Washington, D.C., because I want the American people to dictate that agenda," he told the crowd, which presumably included at least a few lobbyists.

Obama's Small-Donor Goldmine

Obama told the audience that his campaign has created "a parallel public financing system," in which thousands of small donors, rather than the big donors, influence the candidate. In effect, he is arguing that millions of dollars in small Internet donations are as clean as public funding.

In practical terms, Obama would be better off turning down the public money. At his current pace, next month he will have outraised every other presidential candidate in history.

"What's happened is that there's just way more money out there than, really, anyone expected," says Jonathan Bernstein, a political science professor at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who has followed the recent boom in small-donor political giving.

He says that Internet fundraising in particular has changed the way candidates approach fundraising. Not only can the Internet generate large amounts of cash, he says, but also it's "not nearly as time-intensive as having to schmooze with the big-money people."

Catching the McCain Train

McCain does not have that base of small donors. This week, he held that most traditional of money events — a reception at the Willard Hotel, around the corner from the White House.

Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL) attended and said he saw lots of donors who had previously backed McCain's primary rivals.

"These are folks that missed the train first time through," he said. "But now that they see that he's going to be the nominee, they want to be a part of the team."

Events like the Willard reception have boosted McCain's finances since he clinched the nomination. But Obama has been outraising him more than two to one. With public financing in the fall, McCain would get $1.4 million per day — eight times his daily fundraising average since he declared his candidacy.

An FEC Snafu

But if McCain — or Obama — decides to seek public financing, there's still a catch.

Since 1976, every Democratic and Republican nominee has opted for public financing. Normally, it has not been that difficult. During the week of the nominating convention, the candidate sends a pledge to the Federal Election Commission, and the commission votes to certify the candidate. That certification goes to the Treasury, which makes a wire transfer after the candidate's acceptance speech.

This year, however, the Federal Election Commission has been non-functional. It requires four affirmative votes to take any action, and it currently has just two sitting commissioners. Senators have spent months squabbling over four nominees.

Fred Wertheimer, a long-time advocate for stronger campaign finance laws, says the stalemate causes all sorts of enforcement problems, in addition to the public financing issue.

"If another country was going through a national election and had shut down their agency to oversee the campaign finances of the election, we would call that country a banana republic," Wertheimer says.

Observers see a window in the legislative and political schedules, in May and June, when the Senate might confirm new commissioners. If it does not act, either party's nominee could seek a court order for the public funds. It is unclear whether a judge would agree.

[Peikko 1,575]

Troll, I didn't say it was a bad thing, I said it wasn't something that trumpetted the much vaunted 'change' policy. It is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.

NPR news, excellent work number 6.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Small, individual contributors donating money to a campaign that won't take money from PACs and lobbyists -- is a bad thing?

Here's an old article on it from NPR. Some interesting points.

McCain Pressures Obama on Public Financing

Democrats have not even picked their presidential nominee yet, but already, Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is jostling with Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain over how to finance the fall campaign.

McCain intends to take public funds. He accuses Obama of breaking a promise to do the same. But the cash machine built by the Obama campaign may dwarf the $84 million federal grant that he would get from Washington under public financing.

A Public Financing Pact?

Public financing is a Watergate-era reform, and McCain and Obama are vying for the halo of "reformer." Under the program, a candidate takes the public funds and agrees not to raise any private money. The money comes from a check-off on federal income-tax returns. Grants are supposed to be large enough to make candidates competitive; they free up time that would otherwise be spent raising money.

McCain and Obama seemed to strike an agreement on public financing months ago. If both were nominated and one said yes, so would the other. Obama even answered in the affirmative on a questionnaire that asked if he would use public funds.

Since then, however, Obama's fundraising has shot into the stratosphere. The higher it goes, the less incentive he has to take public funds.

McCain is making the promise a campaign issue. "I made a promise to the American people that I would" take public funds, he said in a recent campaign appearance. "And he made a promise. Apparently he may not keep that."

Obama prefers to talk about a different promise: to change Washington. It's a central theme of his campaign. He makes a point of not accepting contributions from federally registered lobbyists, and at a fundraiser in Washington this week, he said lobbyists with lots of campaign cash should not have so much influence.

"I don't love the way they dictate the agenda in Washington, D.C., because I want the American people to dictate that agenda," he told the crowd, which presumably included at least a few lobbyists.

Obama's Small-Donor Goldmine

Obama told the audience that his campaign has created "a parallel public financing system," in which thousands of small donors, rather than the big donors, influence the candidate. In effect, he is arguing that millions of dollars in small Internet donations are as clean as public funding.

In practical terms, Obama would be better off turning down the public money. At his current pace, next month he will have outraised every other presidential candidate in history.

"What's happened is that there's just way more money out there than, really, anyone expected," says Jonathan Bernstein, a political science professor at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who has followed the recent boom in small-donor political giving.

He says that Internet fundraising in particular has changed the way candidates approach fundraising. Not only can the Internet generate large amounts of cash, he says, but also it's "not nearly as time-intensive as having to schmooze with the big-money people."

Catching the McCain Train

McCain does not have that base of small donors. This week, he held that most traditional of money events — a reception at the Willard Hotel, around the corner from the White House.

Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL) attended and said he saw lots of donors who had previously backed McCain's primary rivals.

"These are folks that missed the train first time through," he said. "But now that they see that he's going to be the nominee, they want to be a part of the team."

Events like the Willard reception have boosted McCain's finances since he clinched the nomination. But Obama has been outraising him more than two to one. With public financing in the fall, McCain would get $1.4 million per day — eight times his daily fundraising average since he declared his candidacy.

An FEC Snafu

But if McCain — or Obama — decides to seek public financing, there's still a catch.

Since 1976, every Democratic and Republican nominee has opted for public financing. Normally, it has not been that difficult. During the week of the nominating convention, the candidate sends a pledge to the Federal Election Commission, and the commission votes to certify the candidate. That certification goes to the Treasury, which makes a wire transfer after the candidate's acceptance speech.

This year, however, the Federal Election Commission has been non-functional. It requires four affirmative votes to take any action, and it currently has just two sitting commissioners. Senators have spent months squabbling over four nominees.

Fred Wertheimer, a long-time advocate for stronger campaign finance laws, says the stalemate causes all sorts of enforcement problems, in addition to the public financing issue.

"If another country was going through a national election and had shut down their agency to oversee the campaign finances of the election, we would call that country a banana republic," Wertheimer says.

Observers see a window in the legislative and political schedules, in May and June, when the Senate might confirm new commissioners. If it does not act, either party's nominee could seek a court order for the public funds. It is unclear whether a judge would agree.

Good reference, 6.