Common Cause - Holding Power ResponsibleCommon Cause - Holding Power Responsible

Topics
Our Issues
Money in Politics
Election Reform
Media and Democracy
Ethics in Government
Government Accountability
Press Center
Research Center
Register to Vote

Sign Up and join the Community - click here

On public financing in the presidential race

The latest presidential campaign skirmish over the public financing system misses a couple of key points and has involved a narrow focus and a fair amount of candidate bashing.  Let's take a look at the facts.

Obama made a commitment to use public funds in the general election if he wins the nomination and if his Republican opponent made the same commitment.  His words seemed clear, but now his campaign spokesman appears to be backtracking from that statement.

McCain made a similar commitment.  He said he would use public funds in the primary, but he changed course - even using a bank loan with the promise of future public funds as collateral - and has now skipped public financing in the primary.

It appears that both candidates had a change of heart.

We would like to see both general election candidates - whomever they are - use public financing because it reduces the influence of large special interest donors.  But the system is out of date and in need of a fix, too.  As we've said for some time now, it's just as important - if not more so - that the next President make it a priority to update and expand the public financing system.

Here's what we know about their stances and history.

Obama has committed in written responses to us and to the Midwest Democracy Network (MDN) that he will make it a priority to update the presidential public financing system and pass a voluntary full public financing system for Congress, if elected President.  He is an original cosponsor of both Senate bills that would achieve those goals (Feingold-Collins for presidential and the Durbin-Specter Fair Elections Now Act for congressional).

McCain has committed in writing to support the presidential system update, but has not responded to our request and has not pledged to make congressional public financing a priority if elected.  He cosponsored the presidential public financing bill in past years but is no longer a cosponsor, nor is he a cosponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act.

Clinton signed our pledge to make congressional public financing a priority if elected, but has not responded to MDN about the presidential public financing system.  She is a cosponsor of the Feingold-Collins bill in the Senate but is not a cosponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act.

Amidst all the recent bashing, it's important to note that all three candidates have made public written statements in support of full public financing systems, which represents great promise.  It's our job to make them deliver on those promises.


Tags: public financing, election 08, fair elections now act, clean elections, campaign finance reform, John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)


Display:

Obama on Public Financing of his Campaign

This is what Obama had to say in USA Today:

Opposing view: Both sides must agree
I will seek a good faith pact that results in real spending limits.

By Barack Obama

In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.

As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. 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.

In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.

We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.

I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.

by pjsilver on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM EST


Must read

MUST READ!!! CHECK OUT THE ARTICLES "RIGHT ON DAY ONE?" http://savagepolitics.com/?p=112 AND "BARACK OBAMA'S APOSTASY" http://savagepolitics.com/?p=101

BRILLIANT ANALYSIS!!!!!!!!!!!

by elsylee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:09:13 PM EST


not exactly

I wouldn't call that "brilliant analysis."  Personally, I've found the mischaracterizations and allusions about Obama being a Muslim -- he's clearly not, as he's said -- very troubling.  I felt the same way about Romney and Mormonism.  I don't think a candidate's personal religion should be a significant issue in the race to begin with, and certainly not when used by authors who are opponents of that candidate and/or religion masquerading as "concerned and impartial" observers.

by Josh Zaharoff on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:14:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.


contact us | volunteer/intern programs | employment opportunities | site map | privacy policy