Letters to the Editor
-
False equivalence between McCain and Obama
The Obama and McCain situations only appear similar at a distance. When you look at the details, they are completely different.
Clearly, Obama is technically within the letter of the law, and morally within the spirit of the law.
The public financing system is intended to prevent moneyed interests from buying votes. "Moneyed interests" does not include a million people giving $109 each.
It's not as if Obama were saying, oh gee, Warren Buffet/George Soros/Bill Gates is going to give me a huge chunk of cash, I really don't want to be bound by that public financing system. When you have a million small contributors, that *is* public financing, just not the kind that's run through the government.
There are plenty of genuinely ambiguous situations in which we have to make difficult moral judgemen, but this isn't one of them. McCain is trying to find loopholes in the law that bears his name. Obama is receiving an unanticipated amount of support from, um, the public, has made no legal commitments on this issue, and is cannot reasonably be expected to spurn this direct support from individual small contributors so as to satisfy some pundits who have their noses so deep in a rulebook that they can't see the moral issues the rules are based on.
-
Natural Born Citizen
The "natural born citizen" clause of Article II of the Constitution means someone born a citizen of the United States.
There are two ways to meet that standard:
- Be born on U.S. soil, which includes all states, territories, military bases and embassies anywhere on the planet.
- Be born to parents at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen.
In the first instance, you are a citizen of the U.S. regardless of your parents' citizenship.
In the second instance, you are a citizen of the U.S. regardless of the location of your birth.
Accused terrorist Jose Padilla, born in the U.S., is eligible to run for President.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California and naturalized citizen for more than 30 years, is not.
Clear now?
-
Yes, but . . .
They have definitely changed their tune about accepting public financing, though they have also not said no yet.
I think the key is that they both agree to do the same thing, whatever that is. If that happens, parity of opportunity is achieved and then it's up to the fundraisers.
-
The Public Has Spoken
In light of the millions of dollars donated to Barack Obama in small increments by ordinary members of the American public, I would say that he is already using public financing and should not resort to federal public financing. He would have to return over a million donations which would seem unwieldy to me. Additionally, the people who have donated are so committed that they would probably be insulted to get the money back.
This is no ordinary campaign and I think a pledge made before things really got off the ground should not be an issue.
In other words, it would be foolish to resort to federal public financing under the current circumstances. Both candidates should be released from the pledge.
-
Raising Money is Leverage
Your story did not mention the fact that Obama apparently made his caveat about negotiating an agreement to limit spending even when he originally signed the alleged pledge. For reasons I find unclear most commentators seem to dismiss this argument as specious. But you did mention something I had not heard which actually lends credence to the view that his goal is -- and has always been -- to negotiate some limits on soft money spending. The ruling that you report he sought and received from the FEC as early as Feb. 2007 which stated that he could raise money and then return it if a spending truce was reached suggests strongly that he was aware even then that he could only get an effective agreement from the Republican nominee if he had leverage over them in the form of a large war chest. Why would McCain agree to limits on the party spending or some non-binding way of deterring 527s from forming -- if he thought not they would benefit him. Only if Obama can demonstrate that without such an agreement, he Obama, would have more campaign money that Obama could surrender.
-
You Have Barack's Promise Wrong
Barack said, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
http://www.midwestdemocracynetwork.org/templates/media/MDNPresidentialQuestionnaire.pdf
This is a qualified yes. This is not a yes, no matter what. Why should he disarm if the GOP will not, and they will not? He is not a hypocrite. He included a condition at the time. Anybody that limits their resources in a battle, when the other side doesn't is a fool. Barack Obama anticipated the problems with underfunding and responded accordingly.
-
Lazy journalism at BEST
Obama never pledged any such thing. He only promised to sit down and try to work something out with the republican nominee IF he becomes the dem nominee. I think the author is a Hillary shill (surprise, surprise from a Salon article)or just a coward who is afraid to go after McCain's indiscretions without being "fair and balanced" and going after a dem. too.
-
Are Obama and McCain hypocrites?
Sure they are!