Letters to the Editor
-
The Ideal and the Reality
Here's the ideal: McCain just realizes the inevitable, that he's going to lose to Obama in a respectable landslide, and just saves that money for something else. Obama does the same. The state of the union improves on many levels.
Here's the reality: There are potential right wing 527 groups like the Swift Boaters, with unlimited resources to make all kinds of unfounded but compelling slams. ("Actually, Obama is really Osama Bin Ladin in disguise!!! He's going to become president and turn our nukes on ourselves!") Now, if Obama goes with public funding, and gives back all the millions and millions he's received (largely through small donations from grass roots support, I might add, which is truly democracy in action), there might come a day when he doesn't have enough funds to counter the inevitable "Obama Killed Laci Petersen" claim.
I think he should stick with private funding. But he needs to explain his decision to the public, to maintain credibility.
-
It's the system, not the men
The problem is with the system. Everyone understands the good intentions behind the legislation, but the simple fact of the matter is that raising money today consumes more time now than in the pre watergate days before we imposed spending limits.
The laws were in reaction to anonymous cash being used without any audit trails. Hence the law for full disclosure.
But, in the recoil over watergate we sought to limit cash as well and therefore put in donation caps that were not tied to inflation. From the first laws in 1974 to McCain Feingold, inflation was right around 300% meaning, all other things equal, candidates had to spend three times the effort to get the same buying power.
Again, with no inflation adjustments, it's become more and more compelling to eschew matching funds and pull what you could.
Speech is speech under the first amendment and buying an ad is deemed protected speech, hence why 527s can exist, why unions can buy ads, and on and on and on.
What it boils down to is we want to know who is saying what. It's a little bit like the dust up on here about anonymous. If someone wants to put out a smear on Obama, we want to know who the hell gave the money. Is it some close ally to McCain or just some whack job McCain would disavow. (Or vice versa)
While I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, the perversity of the anonymity could have a supporter of a candidate putting out a vicious attack ad to engender sympathy for their candidate at the unfair attack AND cast the opponent in a negative light. And without the complete transparency, it also allows smear mongers the ability to cast that doubt and disavow knowledge.
We the people should have the right to spend as much of our money to put out our speech as possible. That's our right under the first amendment.
But with rights come responsibilities, and the responsibility we have should be to FULLY DISCLOSE our name when doing so.
I am not sure the arcane reasons why McCain is getting tripped up. Seems it has to do with his using as collateral the ability to tap matching funds to cover his loan. The question sounds like a typical legal wrangle. Was it a sole source of collateral? Was it one of money sources? Does it matter now that the loan has been retired -- if it has been retired.
So McCain's snag is contractual legal. He's made no pledge per se and will have to live by the ruling. That he's the poster child for campaign finance reform makes damages his image.
Obama's is one of a campaign promise. He wouldn't be the first to renege on a campaign promise, but, part of his image is being the anti-politician who is a breath of fresh air. If he breaks it, he's "just like the rest of them."
Think about the (valid) furor over Hillary pledging to honor the DNC nullification of Michigan and Florida delegates and then intimating she'd renege on that pledge after she won the slates. Obama's funding dance is no different.
Obama pledged to take matching funds when he was having trouble raising cash. Now he has no problem raising the cash.
Each is caught in an ethical dilemma based on cash. Cash we over regulate to the detriment of the process through the law of unintended consequences of well intention programs. The intention is to minimize the influence of money in politics, but by capping that which they can raise we actually force them to focus more time, rather than less time, on cash.
The problem is with the system and not with the candidates.
I extend my heartfelt sympathies to ANY candidate running for office be it the well heeled capable of raising copious amounts and having to decide whether or not to accept federal funds as well as to the lesser knowns incapable of relying on a few well heeled patrons to get their name out there in a way only Filthy rich unknowns such as Romney, Perot, Forbes, Bloomberg, and Corzine can.
The only people capable of challenging incumbents with entrenched name recognition are the independently wealthy. Citizen politicians need not apply under this system unless they have the time in one election cycle to build the name recognition for the next election cycle. And, let's face it, right now Huckabee's running for 2012 or 2016 right now.
Nothing like a five year election cycle for a four year term. Find the basis for that in the Federalist Papers. I dare you.
-
To the Hilary Supporters......
Whowant to whine some more about how Obama is now some hypocrite, read Ericas post again. If we're only finding out now Obama is a hypocrite, then what say you about HRCs hypocracy so early on concerning M. and F. ?
There is no making you guys happy? You guys want to have a candidate that takes on the right wing smear machine, but now you lament when Obama is doing merely what he needs to do to win. Isn't that why you guys support HRC? because she'll "fight" back?
Lets be honest here, if tomorrow MCain can dial up huge contributions he'd step out of a deal with Obama in a heatbeat, and nobody on the republican side will even bother noticing that he went back on his word.
Do we want to win or not?
If so, let our candidate- Obama if its him- work out an agreement that doesnt tie one hand behind his back. For once, folks, lets actually try to win? You people do remember what that was like right?