I'm an Obama supporter who does not appreciate this decision. Yes, I understand the benefits to his campaign, but thinking about the risk here makes me stagger. He's just opened the door for a valid flip-flopping charge...and reversed position on a rather significant issue.

This, just after the Muslim womens' complaint...I have to say I don't like the pattern this week.

Obama/Kucinich 08!

Passed 'reform' measures, has he?

Well, www.opensecrets.org tells us that for the 2008 Presidential campaign, in money taken from just ONE sector (Lawyers & Lobbyists) Barack has already taken over 17 MILLION Bucks. Second ONLY to HRC.

Sector: Lawyers & Lobbyists
Hillary Clinton: $17,645,358
Barack Obama: $17,500,375
John Edwards: $7,824,512
John McCain: $5,661,398
Rudy Guiliani: $4,507,828

They also shed some light on his political career handouts received:
Lawyers and Law firms: $13,955,388
Securities and Investments: $7,264,160
Miscellaneous Finance: $7,413,077
Real Estate: $3,765,953
Business Services: $3,274,570
Hollywood (Movies, TV, Music):
$3,051,080
Commercial Banks: $1,482,940
Insurance Companies: $800,904
Construction: $652,222
Computers & ISPs: $1,888,460
Healthcare Industry: $2,361,878

Given the amounts of money he's ALREADY taken from business lobbys, what would that pledge Really Mean anyway, even if he DIDN'T take any more between now and November?
That those who had Already Given him Tens of Millions of Dollars would no longer count with him, and We WOULD?

If you buy THAT story, maybe you'd like to buy some ocean-front real estate I've got for sale in Nevada...

DC,

Great piece.

I am going to send Barack another small donation just for good measure.

Change is a bear but change is coming.

With the internet the small donors are better connected and the future of fundraising will continue to evolve.

This is the first broadband president - things are different and the old ways are dead and dying.

Flow as you go. Obama is out to win an election. Sometimes "change" means just that: change in direction. We're not looking at a saint-in-cement here; we're watching a politician do what has to be done. As far as McCane goes, he can't keep up with Obama, so...he whines in platitudes. And the incessant whinings are hypocritical at best. This time around, McCane is out of his league.

If McCain had made this choice, he would have been McLiar. If Hillary had done this she would have been that lying bitc., but of course when the anointed one does it, his supporters will find 50 ways to spin this as okie dokie. The loony left is just as disingenuous as the radical right.

"Assuming that McCain will rely on the public subsidy of $85 million, the GOP will somehow have to cover the $200 million-plus gap between the McCain campaign and the Obama campaign."

Is Obama's strategy here to break the GOP? Make them flush so much cash into McCain that they have little left in House and Senate contests?

I'm curious as to where this assumption comes from?

Even if McCain had also pledged publicly to stay within the taxpayer-financed system (what it REALLY is) Barack just gave him an easy excuse to get out of it.

The last line of the article summed it all up: "This self-proclaimed candidate of change will be the most well-financed-by-the-voters politician in the history of the United States."

The key words are "financed by the voters." That's a lot different than financed by the corporations. Of course we voters do have an agenda just like the corporations. Our agenda is to bust up the corporate strangle-hold on our government.

Obama would have to take a HUGE risk by foregoing his advantage in fundraising. In that sense, its really not his decision alone and he is compelled to make a decision which reflects the best interest of his party and its members, which I think he has done. It is small fuel for the adversary (flip-flop charge) but equally disempowers those who would accuse him of being a altrustic chump (like Carter).
The only way he could get by on public financing would be to use his vast list of email contributers to raise money for OTHER Democratic candidates--by sending emails asking the recipients to forward to another page and give to the other D's. That concept is a bit too fancy for even smart Mr. Obama. In the mean time, if Obama's financial advantage continues (as it has been thus far), Mr, McCain is 'toast', come 2nd Tuesd. in Nov.

to Change!

You have to be careful about your definitions. The figures you quote aren't form registered lobbyists, but from people who work in those industries. They could be looking for access, but if you work for a bank and make a donation from your personal funds, you have to report your employer and occupation, and that means your donation gets counted as coming from banking.

Let's just clarify.

According to www.opensecrets.org:

[...in our industry totals we also include contributions from an industry's political action committees, which is also raised from individuals but gets directed to candidates by the corporation, trade association, union or other entity that controls the PAC. While PAC money is easy to classify by industry, individual contributions to candidates and parties are far more difficult to classify — both because of the huge number of contributions, and because the data is based on employer/occupation data that is often incomplete. In most election cycles, approximately 70% of the contributions there have been categorized, based on the occupation/employer reported by the donor. Generally speaking, the Center's coding is more complete in more recent election cycles than in the earlier years.

NO INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF LESS THAN $200.
Those contributions are not itemized by candidates, but rather reported in bulk."]

The opensecrets site is the best internet tool we've got for finding out who funnels money to whom in politics.
Even if it doesn't make our favored candidates look too squeeky clean, we shouldn't write the information off as irrelevant.

If you think knowing the amounts that people in a particular industry contribute to a particular candidate isn't useful in trying to determine who is seeking to influence that candidate, and in what way, I must respectfully disagree.

Change! the point opensecrets takes is far too high-minded to bring to this political fight. Gore and Kerry both fought by Marquis de Queensbury rules and got beat by a bunch of street fighters. Tanks be to Gott he's playing to win!

and we do not know the dynamics behind those donations. Maybe like-minded people just want this Orwellian nightmare to end.

I think ALL Presidential candidates should be restricted to exclusively using public monies. Clear up a lot of little 'problems' later on...

David, Obama has a grassroots network of 1.5 Million people who've given a max of $20. That's $30 Million dollars out of $265 Millions received to date; 10% to 15% of the current total from small donors.

He, and Democrats in general, can expect to benefit handsomely from 527's such as Sauros'.

His decision would be easier to stomach if he had not actually SPONSORed public campaign finance legislation!!

Let's just call a spade a spade; he realizes now that he will outraise McCain and the Republicans (largely from big donors), so he wants to remove the restrictions he was trying to legislate.

Perhaps the story is NOT deeper than the simple narrative.

I hope that Obama has the brains, heart and guts to make any decision that will get him elected in November. If that means doing something that can have a negative spin in the moment, so be it. The gloves are always off for Repubs. Let's show them that we cannot be bullied into submission again. Remember President Gore?

Kevin, it's not $20, it's $200. Know the facts before you try to make an argument.

I couldn't help noticing that Obama met with HRC's money folk last week and this week opted out of public financing. Looks a lot like business as usual.

Also, I think that organized groups are political entities and individual donors are not. I'd rather have organized labor contributing to a candidate than an individual worker.

Although I enjoy David Corn this looks like a matter of David's saying since he likes Obama, anything Barask does is saintly. Not so.

I think the republicans will have only the highest admiration for Obama. Hopefully, he is beating them at their own game. In the past two elections, both Gore and Kerry were swift-boated, now let the repugs experience being torpedoed.

{"In the past two elections, both Gore and Kerry were swift-boated, now let the repugs experience being torpedoed."}

You really want to see this behavior repeated, expanded and perpetuated?

Three wrongs will make it right? If it means a Dem makes it to the Whitehouse you'll feel good about it, no matter what it took?

We complain about dirty politics from the other side and then cheer on our side when they emulate it?

Don't we teach our children that "he hit me first" is an unacceptable excuse for clobbering the other kid?

And we wonder why Americans become so disillusioned with politics that nearly half of eligible voters stay home on election day.

"We're watching a politician do what has to be done."
Posted by dadpasadena on 06/19/08 at 11:13 AM

You're right about that, but when it was Sen. Clinton, that was considered to be a despicable characteristic of an old style pol.

The hypocrisy of Sen. Obama and his supporters about this subject is stunning. Money has been at the core of politics for a long time and this move by Sen. Obama renders his message of “change” to little more than a hollow platitude.

Maybe Kerry and Gore were swift-boated, but McCain and his approach to campaign finance reform have been buggy-whipped. Obama's approach maintains the spirit of campaign finance reform but in a 21st-century paradigm.

From what I understand, the overall average donation to Obama during the primaries was around $100, with many people giving multiple small donations in the $5-50 range.

Given how much Obama's raised on the Internet, it's easier for him than for most politicians to say to the fat cats, I don't need you THAT badly.

The GOP has historically been better at raising huge sums for the relatively unregulated RNC than the Dems for the DNC. Rich corporate interests have also more richly funded right-wing 527's, enabling the GOP to swift-boat its opponents. The Dems have been consistently outgunned there.

As currently constructed, public financing makes candidates MORE dependent on the big-bucks contributors who fund the party national committees and 527's.

On the document McCain keeps citing, Obama offered a detailed explanation of the negotiations that would have to take place to reach an agreement to commit to public financing. To wit, Obama wanted to address the the party national committees and the 527's.

Obama and McCain had a discussion at Tim Russert's funeral. There were also press reports of back-channel negotiations. But the truth is, because of the First Amendment McCain could not promise to stop the right-wing 527's any more than Obama could simply dictate to moveon.org.

McCain will try to make political hay with this, but he's already getting hit back with reminders of his legally-questionable footsie game with public financing during the primaries, and getting a whole of free frequent flyer miles on his wife's exempted jet. And who put the air travel exemption into the campaign reform legislation???

Bottom line - Obama rejected federally-controlled public financing in favor of turning to the general public for financing. He's playing to win. I know Democrats aren't used to this, but they should find it refreshing.

this guy obama has no track record...he left his church,now goes back on his word about campaign funds, kinda makes you wonder how he would haved voted on the iraq war, had he held an office, this guy is being backed by some big money from some where , and its not the internet, gimme a break...you dont start a campaign in inter city chicago on internet money, if he s elected we ll find out a lot more but it will be to late, write in a candidate, hopefully an independant, but write one in, dont play the game again this election cycle, the only change your gonna get will be in your pocket, i cant believethis guy is even being concidered for this job

There are two reasons that the Republicans are moaning as loudly as they are: (1) they didn't do it first, and (2) they didn't do it first!

The Republicans are the masters of lying, hypocrisy, deception and Dirty Tricks. Obama outsmarted them. He did an end run around them. HE DID THE RIGHT THING. Why would he deliberately limit himself when he would be absolutely foolish to do so? The only stupid thing he did was to make that pledge. Now he broke it, he's taking heat, and -- IT WAS THE RIGHT DECISION.

You want Change? HERE'S CHANGE! He broke away from a system full of loopholes and back doors where all kinds of over-the-limit money comes through under the table.

Now it's all out in the open. He's trusting his followers to finance his run for the presidency. That's REAL CHANGE, which he has promised all along. Sometimes really stupid promises need to be broken.

Well said dad...this isn't so much hypocrisy in my mind, as the courage to change course even when it may be an extremely unpopular choice.

I my opinion, he already has a different kind of public finance system. He will be the voice of common folks and not big interests. Public is banding together to support him. I am not sure why media does not see it that way. And in the end, he has to win to make difference.

the blind sheep of obamamania

Please don't get your tectonic plates out of sync! This sort of thing goes both ways in case you have not noticed.

to the capt. change? what are you? some kind of Idiot! donate change to obama, mabey 51 cent, thats all hes worth.

to the capt. change? what are you? some kind of Idiot! donate change to obama, mabey 51 cent, thats all hes worth.

Good thought. The DCCC (run Rep. Van Hoeln [MD])is doing well in fundraising, but the DNC (with it's funds distribution network better tied into local campaigns than the DCCC) is not. I like Obama because he is shrewd and has a healthy cynical streak in him (i.e., Jon Stewart).

i hope some obamanite,or obamanut asks me for some spare change...i hope that happens

Michael Heister, you make a very good, cogent argument. Thank you for your comments.

Get over it Rick. Fight fire with fire. No more Swift-boating by the scum bag Republican Facists.

Ricko you're Sicko. You and your ilk are your own worst enemies.

What a joke! This whole issue is the biggest red herring I have EVER seen. Who Cares! what a NON-issue. People act like a politician has never had to compromise his values just to get in office. Wow. Just remember, "SHEEPLE".......in order to enact CHANGE...........you first need to get into office! So what if he is taking millions of small donations from the "common people". It's actually very refreshing for a CHANGE. Does anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty think that McBush would not do the same exact thing if he could? Give me a break you sanctimonious ace-holes. Please excuse me.........I'm going to the Obama website right now to make another donation! Hasta la vista BABIES.

well yeah, i supported kerry[somewhat] in 04, and yeah the swift boat thing was extremely unfair and under handed,but i just dont see what you guys do in obama, dont get it

to rick, you got it right, you don't come out of a city like chicago, get a web address, and than say, i think ill run for president, that way people will send me hundreds of millions of dollars, lets see if a hundred people send me a million dollars each, thats already a hundred million,this is the kind of logic, most of you idiots understand, get it in your heads, obama will change things, but not for the better. i was a life long democrat, but after kennedy kerry, dean and the florida and michigan deal, im now an independent, and wont vote for either one of those jerks,signed a 40 year former democrat

hey crawford,...have ken starr put on you for a couple years ,60 million bucks, and all his goons, to investigate every thing you ever did in your life, try that one on...swift boat was ugly dirty rotten politics, but nothing like ken starr, but obama was gonna be an above the board fair play guy of the people...he lied

...but obama was gonna be an above the board fair play guy of the people...he lied

ricko apparently prefers martyrdom in his Democratic candidates.

Sure McCain and his allies are going to push this as a "broken promise." No one, not even us crazy Obama "five and dimers" (full disclosure: I'm in for $195 so far, and plan to AT LEAST match that the rest of the way) could imagine that we were backing a candidate who could actually outraise the GOP opponent. We didn't realize that there were so many of us deluded souls out there. And guess what? There's apt to be even more of us now.

Call it lying if you want, but Obama has correctly concluded that he can best help the entire Democratic ticket by continuing to rely on folks like me for most of his total haul. The coattails he can generate by essentially underwriting the campaigns of good Dems who are going to be outraised by the local GOP incumbent are HUGE. This could mean 10-15 MORE people in the House, 2-3 MORE in the Senate than is already expected, perhaps a couple more Governors and change of control of a couple of statehouses, maybe even as far down-ballot as dogcatcher in some places. All because these candidates know that VOTER ID AND GOTV WILL BE FULLY FUNDED leading up to E-Day. As someone who has watched for decades as a promising Democratic candidate poured as much money as possible into the "air war" only to come up short because he or she was tapped out for the "ground game", this is BIG.

Everything that Obama says, or does, or did, or might have done, or is said to have done -- every iota of it will fuel the mill of the Republikan Party and its Swift-Boat minions, who will use one smear, one equivocation, one implication, one false charge, one dirty trick, or one blatant crime after another in an attempt to gore Obama.

Obama is right, and if he flip-flopped, as they call it, he was simply demonstrating an ability to change his mind in the face of facts -- which is something no modern Republikan appears to understand.

It will take money to counter the huge surfeit of loot that American industry will feed to the McCain campaign. That's the reality that Obama has belatedly recognized -- but Republikans appear to have lost the ability to adapt. They have become stupid, deliberately, choosing to believe their fantasies because fantasies suit them well and serve them well.

Doesn't anyone understand that this election is nothing short of war? The polarization in America is still present; it comes from an unhealed wound: the failure of -- indeed the absence of -- Reconstruction. It is no surprise that America's fascism arises from the south, at least in terms of "philosophy." Their faith is one that has encompassed, and encompasses today, torture, disenfrachisement, and murder. All that was conceded for the blood of Union soldiers was the end of slavery. Nothing else changed for the right (whether posing as Democratic or Republikan).

The polarization has not gone -- it has solidified. When you stack the Constitution up against the values of the Democratic Party and those of the Republikans, both parties earn low compliance score.

However, the Republikans have put one criminal after another in the White House for decades, starting with Richard Nixon -- and they are not about to stop it, unless we stop them.

Our opponents intend to go on destroying the biosphere upon which we depend for our very lives, and they are willing to do it without any regard whatsoever for the prospects of humanity, or even for the future of their own progeny.

They forcibly overthrew our democracy in 2000, and sooner or later, pundits and peons alike must realize that this is a war, and if we play the opposition's games, we'll lose.

Of course, it is not a war of bullets, nor of any violence. That kind of revolution is no longer possible. The power of the modern state cannot be resisted by those means.

It is the way of Ghandi, the way of King, of Lech Wałęsa, that can bring about revolution. The revolutionary model of Lithuania, East Germany and Poland provide a new path for change. We will always have criminal Republikan stooges in the Oval Office if that's what we deserve -- until such time as, like brave Ukranians or East Germans, we surround the executive seat in our masses, demanding liberty and justice for all.

Until then, we are going to have Republikan grotesques, like McCain or Bush, jeopardizing our liberty as well as the prospects of our species' survival.

High-minded? Surely you hold BO to a greater standard that JM. Quite simply BO is a 'leader' that does not honor his promises or commitments. If thats what you desire in a politician - fine, but don't pretend BO is bringing a new day of hope and change to the political landscape of America. This guy is as a corrupt a politician as the best of them. Three days ago BO website touted election finance reform Today the page has been removed. Whatever suits BO at any given moment is what his policy will change to. You have to be delusional to support this guy.

In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system. (NYT)--

Hey Ricko! Change Please!

broken promise?...its a lie, he s on record,..he s a liar simple stuff, and if your cool with that, than your no better than the republicans you so detest,...and yeah you might be right, i would rather support hillary clinton and ,lets just say narrowly lose, than support obama,anyday....and onlinsavant, i dont have any spare change for you ask the great obama he seems to have plenty,god i hope your not an illegal

It's worth noting that small ($20-$200) donations are quoted at making up between 47% and 50% of Obama's total.

I do think this is best expressed in terms of a movement for change. Obama really has gone to bat for the idea of "new politics." His entire campaign so far has been based on energizing everyday people to political action and it's working. I don't necessarily agree with this decision, but it's reassuring that the numbers back up Obama's rhetoric.

As for this "Obamamania" nonsense... Are you people surprised that people are defending Obama? For the first time in my life I see people voting for and stumping for a candidate because they like the candidate--not because of who the candidate is running against.

Those dollars are the "little" people's vote for CHANGE. Face it!

Never before have Americans been so fed up with the politicians that run our country....

Obama has finally revealed himself for what he is - a savvy, hard (even ruthless) Chicgo pol who managed to hoodwink half the voters in the Democratic primaries.

This could hurt him if the GOP plays it right. No one likes a hypocrite who portrays himself as holier-than-thou.

You refuse to get it! This "compromise" is enough to kill public financing altogether. That's what makes it such a big deal, and why Obama is just another cheap politician after all.

And while we're at it, he's alredy back-tracking on NAFTA, and after saying he would love to have ten town meetings with John McCain, he bowed out.

I think he compromises with the truth too much. What other promises will he break?

Thanks for clearing up my confusion about public financing which sounds good on the surface vs private funding which sounds bad in big hunks, especially from big business.

I am extremely relieved to see that Obama is not a naive goody goody (as a politician from Chicago I figured he had street smarts but sometimes he just seems too nice to be real) and can outfox the enemy. Trust me Mccain is the enemy and there are very big stakes, life and death, a catastrophic drop in our standard of living etc., at risk here. If all you died in the wool repubs (read fascists) are rejecting Obama's decision to
rely on his network supporters rather than be beaten to death by the vicious slams and slander public financing for McCain would and will buy, then you must think we, the libs, dems, and cross over independents are fools. You would not accept Obama under any circumstances - but to read that the reason you are criticizing Obama is altruistic, because it is not the proper thing to do, and it would be better to let the Repubs win instead - I have to lol.

The fact that Obama has the ability to raise money thru individuals, enough to counterattack some of the same crap Hillary dished only more so, is proof enough that the people who are being victimized want Obama in power. With our help he will now have the means to at least fight back.

I think you're really secretly pissed because he is showing guts and toughness you thought he didn't have and some foresight in financial planning that will win him the presidency - skills he will well have to use to straighten out the mess we have inherited from the Republican dictatorship.

If there are more of us and we can raise more money to fight the filthy politics inherent to and part and parcel of the Republican party, then so be it. Go cry to someone who can be made to believe that there is any such thing as a moral, honest or decent Republican with anything even vaguely resembling values of any kind except those in their wallet or willing to embrace any change except that in their own pocket.

This was a good move by Obama if he plans on winning the election. This forces McCain to have to spend money in so called safe areas. We all have changed our minds and done what was in our best interest, if Obama had kept himself within the public financing limits he wld be the same as those reagan democrats, you know people who vote against their self interest bcz they dont like gays.

Ricko, stop being a crybaby! What is at stake here is the survival of the United States as a great nation and biological survival of this world as we know it. I am proud that Obama is standing up to all the republican wrongdoings that have trashed out nation.

After Nixon came Reagan who laid the groundwork for our current mess. Reagan is synonymous with deregulation, historical budget deficits, junk bonds, hostile takeovers, Iran-Contra scandal, supporting terrorism against Nicaragua and supporting right-wing dictatorships and death squads in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, the creation of "crack" and allowing it to flow unrestrictedly into African-American and Latino low-income neighborhoods, CIA drug running from Cental America, etc.

The 2000 and 2004 elections were coup d'etats and our country is living under the dictatorship imposed by oil industry mafia/mob through its puppet president GWB and oil mob enforcer Cheney. And look where all of this has gotten out country now. Don't tell me that $4-$5 a gallon gas, a plunging dollar, the mortgage crisis, the destruction of Habeas Corpus, secretly spying on our citizens without a warrant, the lies to get into Iraq, the war itself and our military personnel have have been killed and injured, the destruction of Iraq, Guantanamo, stacking the supreme court toward the right, 50 million Americans without health care, etc.

Come on, Ricko, you gotta be kidding if you think that all of the foregoing points toward a future that Americans and the world can look forward to. So Ricko, put away the kleenex and stop whining because Politics is a "contact" sport and Obama knows it. I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday in February, and I look forward to voting for him in November. I want my country and its core values back as I knew them, DON'T YOU? If the United States goes down the drain as a great nation, the rest of the world will follow suit.

Well said Mr. Cadena. Given the despotic Orwellian nightmare of these last 8 years, and my anger over these events, MY blood pressure will likely DO ME IN... Before I have the chance to witness the US and the world slip away with the continued policies of GWB and Cheney et al. (Just watched PBS's "Bush's WAR", ack!)
We must have change, regain control, do whatever it takes; fight smarter, harder and dirtier if necessary. Hearing BO's oratorical style, seeing him THINK on his feet, his obvious intelligence in communication gives me hope that our American values may return, even improve. I trust his leadership thus far, and have hope and trust in his COMPETENCE (no more "Heck ov'a job Brownie" charade, with NOLA still reeling).
His upbringing as a man of the world, exposed to several cultures intimately, is just the sort of background we need to move forward with a multicultural world-view in the complex world that flummoxed GWB, who conflates a photo-op or sound-bite with reality (talking points: drum/wash it into their numbed brains).
Integrity that appreciates the US Constitution, not trampling it. The Supreme Court teeters on the balance with Roberts and Alito joining Scalia and Thomas. We must maintain a balance that favors the Constitution as a "living document", not a strict constructionist view that fails to appreciate that the framers intended their words to reflect insight in a changing world. BO's election is critical, as 2 or 3 seats may change in the next 8 years.
Obama for me please! "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!!"

well mr cadena, i can respect your point of view, but maybe i should get enough kleenex for all of us.winning a campaign is one thing , but governing is another, i can can see obama getting elected, hell if goerge bush can get elected[twice]why not .but i really think the change signs are going to come down..and the excuse signs are going to go up,personally i fed up with both these gridlock ,posturing parties,and i probably could support obama, if he had done something,governed a state, took postions and voted, spent time in forgien affairs to learn the forgien leaders, and had a repour....little things like that,i hope your right , i hope he knows his stuff, but honestly, and i dont mean this to be cruel, but he reminds me more of jimmy carter , than any others before mentioned, im voting independent, i would like to see our country have other options, thats the change i d like to see, the problems coming for us, if handled unwisely are going to put us into a further tailspin that will ten years to correct...this is not about a campaign election, its about a bankrupt country, with inflation and higher interest rates just on the horizon, and we are not going to be able to spend our way out of this one, and thats not to mention the nuck threats, iran , russia s new assertiveness, bin laden kicking it somewhere,nato falling apart.....i hope none of us need kleenex

where did you get all your figures from madd magazine? you forgot edwards haircut,

"We the people in order to form a more perfect union" need to have our individual votes count. . .What better way than to have a limit on the amount we can spend. The new campain finance reform will maximize this ability for the individual with his pocketbook, however meager to have his vote count.

"We the people in order to form a more perfect union" need to have our individual votes count. . .What better way than to have a limit on the amount we can spend. The new campain finance reform will maximize this ability for the individual with his pocketbook, however meager to have his vote count.

Corn's article is unfortunately based on an untrue right-wing talking point, i.e., that Obama committed himself to accepting public campaign financing. What he actually said was that he would be open to negotiating an agreement with his Republican (and other) opponent(s) to accept the Federal funding. He would have been foolish to commit to limiting himself to public financing when McCain has shown no interest in such an agreement. McCain committed himself to accept public primary funding, used that promise as collateral to borrow money to use for his primary campaign and then reneged on his promise to accept the public financing. There are a lot of experts who think what he did was illegal, but in our corrupt political system it's not likely he will be held to account for his crime; if we can't impeach a president for violating all but the Third Amendment out of the Bill of Rights and also lying us into an illegal and unnecessary war of aggression, there's not a chance in the world that McCain will be brought to the bar of justice.

In any case, McCain is busily flip-flopping on whether he will opt for Federal campaign funds for the presidential race and I suspect he won't take it unless he believes he won't be able to raise as much money from his owners as he could get from the government.

Would it be so audacious to take faith in the public finance system and hope that the American people, and not the influence of larger pockets, will make the right choice in this election? Where is the hope in this uber-realist decision-making? Obama is flouting his own judgment and commitments, showing a lack of faith in the electorate, and in his own ability to face McCain on a level playing field. I'm hoping he has a moment of conscience and changes his mind. I will have serious difficulty going forward with my support of a candidate who has broken such a clear campaign promise in order to get an edge, and lied to us to make it more palatable.

http://mediamatters.org/

Truth matters, it's not being reported.......

Ken Deed, you are right on! Sen. Obama didn't say he'd commit to taking public financing ... unless the other candidate (Sen. McCain) did also. And McCain didn't commit; not until just after Sen. Obama finally made his decision the other day. And McCain probably did it after the fact so he could stretch the truth and attack Sen. Obama about it. Sen. Obama mentioned, months ago, that he might have to waive public financing unless he could trust Sen. McCain to discourage the 527s from swiftboating him later in the campaign. McCain said he wouldn't be able to do that or to "referee" the 527s, so I don't blame Sen. Obama for making the decision he did. The swiftboaters will be out in force. And then there's the Rush Limbaugh crowd. Why on earth wouldn't he want some extra funds to fight back against all the hateful lies and rhetoric? At least that's my take on it.

Such a ridiculous comment considering the dems have been beaten up for the last 8 years. The reason for this is they tried to play by the book, and what did it get them? Beaten.

The republican party has no conscience, and if Obama is going to win the presidency, he must beat them at their own game. Gore and Kerry sat back and let it happen, but I don't think that is going to happen this time around.

Your comment sounds as though it came straight from Faux News impersonators. Pretend outrage isn't working here, so go back to writing on Michelle Malkin's blog.

I hope we are teaching our children that there are politicians and their tagalongs who will do anything to win, and that sometimes you have to rethink your own position in order to triumph. The repugs have stacked the deck the last two elections, and I, for one, want to see them go down. Full speed ahead!

Campaign financing is a complicated issue, as David Corn has pointed out.

The bigger issue, that being what change we can expect from an Obama presidency, is much simpler. The answer is "not much". Obama has already shown us that he is not above reversing what he says he'll do. He's not above changing his positions for political convenience. He's not above taking money from questionable sources.

He won't talk about impeachment, single payer health care, cutting the military budget, no more nuke plants, aggressive crackdown on corporate crime, adopting a carbon tax, reversing US policy in the Middle East, repeal of the Taft-Hartley anti-union law, and other issues that are essential to change the way that corporations are bleeding this country dry.

So what is going to actually change? The change will be cosmetic, superficial, and mostly meaningless. What this ultimately means is that the nation will crash and burn just a bit later that previously thought, assuming it doesn't happen before January 20.

-Wexler

PS I have a 67 year old guitar student and Viet Nam vet who firmly believes that Bush will stage a false flag terrorist attack and declare martial law, so the election isn't even going to happen.

-Wexler

PS I have a 67 year old guitar student and Viet Nam vet who firmly believes that Bush will stage a false flag terrorist attack and declare martial law, so the election isn't even going to happen.

Which makes this entire thread moot, doesn't it?

Actually not far afield from Bill Kristol's assertion that Bush will pre-emptively strike Iran before his term ends (because...he's just dying to see what $6 or $7/gal gas feels like?), and if he's going to do that, better for McCain that it happens in late October than mid-January.

October Surprise: because Holloween just isn't a big enough holiday!

Oh get over it all you republicans with your big bags of cash in your hands and the special interests running the country through you. Get a life.

REFORM SHAKER!!!!!!!

Obama did not opt out of being funded by the public. It is the public that is funding Obama. Obama has separated private corporate funding from public people funding, which is wonderful.

The government issuing funds for the public isn't kosher. It is much better for the public to issue their own funding. The government isn't suppose to run the people, the people are suppose to run the government. Obama wants the people to run the government, instead of the government running the people.

If I've added that all up correctly, the large private contributions you've listed add up to about 99 million. That's less than half of what [I understand]he's raised with small private contributions. I'll wait and see what he's done with that 99 million before I pass judgement. But it looks like he's fine without the large contributors (which I suspect is part of the point of the gesture). I don't disagree in principle of the overall idea behind the gesture. You do, have a point though that it seems he's changing his mind way too late in the game for the gesture to mean anything.

Obama's money could be coming from other countries in small donations that go unreported. He is one scary dude.

Does the public financing balance untapped by the Obama campaign go to the other nominees on the ballot, or can we get our money back?

Financially, this move is 'change' since Obama is the first major nominee to opt-out since 1976.

Symbolically, it's greed as good.

Strategically it could backfire by encouraging GOP third-parties to empty accounts in order to compete.

Realistically, it's just different plutocratic paper-work.

Unfortunately for this voter, he sounds like a slickwillie in hindsight:

"Well, you know, this is something that, obviously, we are going to have to take a careful look at. I'm a big believer in public financing of campaigns. And I think that for a time, the presidential public financing system works.

Unfortunately, because funding has diminished relative to the cost of campaigns, I think you will see a lot of people opt out. And even as I support public financing, I think it's very important for Democrats to be competitive in the general election. That's a decision we are going to have to make."