The Public Financing Question

He pledged to do that? I thought that had been debunked.
That he said he would have discussions with the Republican nominee.
Maybe I am confused.

Mark Schmitt had a take on this the other day:

Obama's precise statement was, and has always been, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." That's an artful statement, and it's not artful in a "meaning of 'is'" sense -- it's exactly the right answer. A commitment to "preserve a publicly financed election" would have to mean much more than whether both participate in the system. It would require some significant agreement about how to handle outside money, 527s, "Swift Boat"-type attack groups, party money, etc., and other factors that have undermined the last two publicly financed elections, from both sides. It is hardly an evasion to describe this as an agreement to be negotiated, rather than a simple pledge.

In other words, he never "pledged" unilateral disarmament, or anything else. Given McCain's dedication to gaming the system that he created, that negotiated deal might never take place.

Never mind that McCain did something far sleazier. Even decent Beltway reporters like Karen are too enthralled with the maverick to address this. From American Prospect:

Additional Requirement. Borrower and lender agree that if Borrower [McCain's campaign commitee] withdraws from the public matching funds program, but John McCain then does not win the next primary or caucus in which he is active (which can be any primary or caucus held the same day) or does not place at least within 10 percentage points of the winner of that primary or caucus, Borrower will cause John McCain to remain an active political candidate and Borrower will, within thirty (3) days of said primary or caucus (i) reapply for public matching funds, (ii) grant to Lender, as additional collateral for the Loan, a first priority perfected security interest in and to all Borrower's right, title and interest in and to the public matching funds program, and (iii) execute and deliver to Lender such documents, instruments and agreements as Lender may require with respect to the foregoing.

Karen: when you start treating things like this we'll stop treating you with the contempt which, for now at least, you richly deserve.

You and your entire profession have become a disgrace. And this is just one example.

Sorry if this sounds harsh. The truth hurts sometimes.

Go back on your word and spend McCain into oblivion, Barry. The Republicans, more often than not led by the Captain of the Double Talk Express, do it all the time.

Well, it looks like Karen's not going to reply to our comments here.

I guess cocktail hour started early today in Georgetown.

I can't find the link right now, but I think TPM did a story on this where they discussed the "pledge," which really wasn't a pledge. Obama says "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

"Aggressively pursue an agreement" does not mean pledge. A key question, I believe, involves 527's. Is the GOP going to restrain its 527 attack dogs?

Notice the 7th group on this list.

Thanks Elvis. He never made a pledge yet
"A lot has been made in recent days over Barack Obama's reversal of his pledge to stay within the federal campaign finance system in the general election"

Once a script is established there seems to be no one who is immune.

Oops. Elvis beat me to it.

Karen, we expect this from Joe but not from you.

Ah, give Karen more than ten minutes to respond, TomT, she's been very good about interacting in the past.

Ari Fleischer and Mary Matalin-Carville are working with a billionaire whose name escapes me to launch a 250 million dollar smear campaign on Democrats.

What does Senator Straight Talk have to say about that? Or is he busy trying to think of an explanation for his most recent vote for torture?

KT here--just read the comments. Actually, TomT, I had just gone down the hall to get a cup of coffee. Here's the actual quote. You are right, it is a pledge to pursue an agreement. I will fix my post:

Q: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents
agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will
you participate in presidential public financing system?

OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of
campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to
reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public
financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008
candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) bill to
reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I
proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing
system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party
candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from
donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general
election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential
candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise
unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission
ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already
pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic
nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican
nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

KT here --

I have fixed it above. I was sloppy in my language, I admit, but I was trying to bring into the debate a larger point, which is that the terrain around campaign finance has shifted significantly since Obama made his comments. Please see above.

Also, TomT, I don't live in Georgetown, and very rarely go there, because there's no parking and no subway.

Karen, you're still not addressing McCain's slippery use of public financing in the primary.

I don't live in Georgetown, and very rarely go there, because there's no parking and no subway.

Spare us the "I'm just regular folk" jib-jab.

KT here--

TomT, it's no more jib-jab than your Georgetown cocktail comment,.

Isn't the USA Today the give away paper at the Marriot?

Oh, the hypocrisy.

"[H]ave you seen the press release from Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Public Citizen, the League of Women Voters and U.S. PIRG urging Senator McCain to keep his commitment to public financing and stop manipulating the matching funds system for the primaries? No? Me neither. I'm sure it's coming any. day. now."

Mark Schmitt, http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=just_answer_the_questions#104538

"For the past week, John McCain has been attempting to hit Barack Obama for reneging on his “pledge” to pursue public financing should he win the nomination. Aside from the fact that no pledge was ever made, McCain’s own abuse of the public financing system negates any presumption of good faith on his part.

McCain isn’t just eager to use public financing as a way of neutralizing Obama’s potential fundraising advantage in a general election match-up, he was eager to use it to bail out his flagging campaign. Via Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker:

As The Washington Post reported on Saturday, John McCain’s campaign struck a canny deal with a bank in December. If his campaign tanked, public funds would be there to bail him out. But if he emerged as the nominee, there’d be no need for public financing, since the contributions would come flowing.

It’s an arrangement that no one has ever tried before. And it appears that McCain, who has built his reputation on campaign finance reform, was gaming the system. Or as a campaign finance expert who preferred to remain anonymous told me, referring to the prominent role that lobbyists have as advisers to his campaign, “This places McCain’s grandstanding on public financing in a new light. True reformers believe public financing is a way to replace the lobbyists’ influence, not a slush fund that the lobbyists use to pay off campaign debts.”

Hardly the kind of behavior you’d expect from a self-avowed champion of the taxpayer’s dollars. McCain’s own financial irresponsibility led his campaign to bankruptcy, and in his moment of need, he expected a government bailout. As usual, Republicans think of welfare as “big government” except when they’re broke and need money."

dnA, http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14625.html

I like you best here KT but the "larger point"
you introduced, well amplified might be more accurate, is that Obama lied or flip flopped.
Whitch "meme" do you think will have more legs in our current climate- campaign finance rules or that lying Obama?

TomT, it's no more jib-jab than your Georgetown cocktail comment.

Karen, you know that we all generally like and respect you here. But when you mouth Beltway media elite talking points about Obama's "pledge" while ignoring the straight-talking maverick McCain's cynical manipulation of public financing rules (rules which he himself championed), you sound an awful lot like someone who does spend a lot of time at said cocktail parties.

You know what I'm saying is true here. Going easy on St. John is straight out of the Broder playbook and you know it.

I think a pledge to "aggressively pursue" obligates Obama to at least sit down and try to work something out with McCain, for the good of the American people. Who knows? - they're both decent people (as politicians go), and they might come up with something. Unfortunately, neither of them has any real control over the more obnoxious elements of their own "supporters", which may prove to be a show-stopper.

KT here--

I wasn't going easy on McCain; I was introducing what I thought was a new way of looking at this whole issue, which is with the added perspective that the state of the campaign law has changed significantly since Obama said what he did, and also by bringing the viewpoint of an expert into the debate. I don't mean to be contentious here, but that's all I was trying to do. It seems strange to me that this would be read as an apologia for McCain. If anything, it seems this adds further justification to Obama's point in what McCain--and Clinton, by the way--are trying to portray as a flip-flop.

I wasn't going easy on McCain; I was introducing what I thought was a new way of looking at this whole issue, which is with the added perspective that the state of the campaign law has changed significantly since Obama said what he did, and also by bringing the viewpoint of an expert into the debate. I don't mean to be contentious here, but that's all I was trying to do. It seems strange to me that this would be read as an apologia for McCain. If anything, it seems this adds further justification to Obama's point in what McCain--and Clinton, by the way--are trying to portray as a flip-flop.

I don't see how you can even address the issue of public financing and Obama's "pledge" without discussing McCain's use of public financing in the primary.

McCain made public financing his signature issue for years (it's why I personally voted for him in the 2000 Republican primary) and now he's making a mockery of the rules. How can anyone have a discussion of public financing in this election without touching on this? It's like discussing the Bush foreign policy without discussing Iraq.

McCain is (along with Russ Feingold) the face of campaign finance reform in the United States. He spent years putting himself on the line for it. And in the past few months he's chucked it all away when it became expedient to to do so.

How is that not noteworthy?

Well, I for one hope that Obama is smart enough to say "the heck with it" and take the money and run. It was silly of him to ever hint at such an agreement. The GOP 527s will destroy him if he lets himself take limited funds. The Democratic 527s are just not nearly as good or as vicious.

"It seems strange to me that this would be read as an apologia for McCain."

Still looking for where you mention McCain's ethics, or lack thereof, or citation of an article critical of McCain's conduct.

Have not found it.

Still have not found it.

KT here--

Sy, I have not gone easy on McCain. In fact, after I wrote this article:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568457,00.html

the McCain campaign informed me that they would not grant me any more interviews. My response was to continue to cover his campaign, with or without access, and to write about the fact that I had been denied an interview:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1642900,00.html

Karen, sorry to bombard here but to be clear: I'm not accusing you of having gone easy on St. John in general, just in this instance.

It just seems bizarre to me that Obama's "pledge" is getting all this attention while McCain's complete flip-flop is not. Your post here seems one manifestation, among many, of this.

If I may chime in, its probably inappropriate to expect EACH contributer here to dig up equal amounts of dirt on EACH candidate.

After all, they all have their own individual assignments and beats. The inattention to McCain's inconsistency is a real issue that needs to be addressed but holding KT personally responsible isn't the way to go....

Let's all blame Joe instead!

Or we could join HH in holding Richard Stengel personally responsible...

My mistake. My comments were in respect to: "It seems strange to me that this would be read as an apologia for McCain."

I have not found "where you mention McCain's ethics, or lack thereof, or citation of an article critical of McCain's conduct" within your post "The Public Financing Question" or subsequent comments.

After all, they all have their own individual assignments and beats.

In this case, the assignment involved public financing, it seems. Doesn't that naturally lead to a discussion of McCain's inconsistency on the issue?

KT here--

Doesn't ANYONE want to talk about my deep and wonky insights into the sorry state of the campaign finance laws, post the Wisconsin Right to Life case??? :-)

I'm just going to go back to posting pictures from the White House Photo Blog.

KT here--
Doesn't ANYONE want to talk about my deep and wonky insights into the sorry state of the campaign finance laws, post the Wisconsin Right to Life case??? :-)

Me, I wanna have a broken-bottle-and-bicycle-chain metafight about punditry, David Broder, and the pigs-in-a-blanket Sally Quinn served at her Valentine's Day Costume Party.

But public financing is the only way to clean up the mess.

Karen, you got the boot from the Straight Talk Express in 2006? For that? That is impressive!

Doesn't ANYONE want to talk about my deep and wonky insights into the sorry state of the campaign finance laws, post the Wisconsin Right to Life case??? :-)

Sure, but it's awfully depressing. The public finance campaign system is broken and our democracy is the worse for it.

Here's to comprehensive Clean Money, Clean Election laws.

None of this public finance question has any relevance considering {rumor has it} Bill Clinton has endorsed Obama. That gives Senator Obama time to spin this story until it reappears in the McCain/Obama debates. If Obama has done one thing properly, it is run a steady campaign who's message continues to stay on course.

http://www.socoolaz.com/article.cfm?articleID=30183

Hey, maybe we should try to not drive away the one Swamplander that responds to reader comments regularly.
If you disagree with what she's posting, fine, but I don't see any reason for all the invective against her.

Sure, I'd also be interested in your take on the free-speech arguments that are at the core of all anti-campaign-finance reform efforts.

The argument that reform=censorship seems to be playing well with the current Supreme Court.

And it appears to cross the normal left-right fault lines (as did the original McCain-Feingold law )

From your NYT link:

Although the court’s five most conservative justices voted in the majority and the four more liberal justices were the dissenters, the outcome was not easy to categorize simply along ideological lines. Both sides of the campaign finance debate have always attracted unusual coalitions. Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in his opinion that among the groups supporting the challenge to the law, which was brought by the Wisconsin Right to Life, were the American Civil Liberties Union and the A.F.L.-C.I.O., as well as the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association.

KT here--

PD, I go back and forth on the free speech vs. public financing debate. I see merits to the idea that money is speech in politics, and yet, the current system is badly broken. Meanwhile, McCain-Feingold has left the parties hollow shells,hastening a process that had already begun. People wonder why Howard Dean can't even get control of the calendar, but when you look at the leverage the DNC has, you understand how weak it has become.

What I don't get, however, is why we can't have instant disclosure, which it would seem is possible these days, technology being what it is. How come we have to wait months to see who gave what, or what is often more interesting, what got spent where? By the time we learn anything about it, the damage is already done.

Karen, I agree with you that the Wisconsin decision makes things worse -- giving the outside groups the opportunity to come up with a dastardly misstatement that the candidate has no time to refute.

This also concerns me --
** Obama still says that if he gets the nomination, he wants to reach "a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits."

No doubt he still thinks that the opposition are people of good will who will want to work with him to achieve worthy goals. I haven't seen that kind of opposition in a very long time. I hope if he is elected, his advisors keep him well informed.

Karen-

What would if all of the Time reporters got banished by McCain? No more access journalism? I know, I know. Jay would suck up to the great man and bring donuts, so, nevermind.

I see merits to the idea that money is speech in politics

I would love to hear one. I see merits to the idea that speech is speech, and that money has gone a long way to making this a one-dollar-one-vote democracy.

Seriously, what has the idea that money=speech done for this country?

That Dec. 06 article is interesting, Karen. I really can't believe that you were booted for it. It's hardly unfair or offensive. I don't really get it.

And what Cliff said. Disagreement is a blast, but let's not go all Triple H on the contributors here-- particularly not the one(s?) who are conscientious about participating.

I think that Karen was right to correct her initial post. And while McCain's dishonesty on this issue is worth noting, it is a separate story from Obama's situation.

With the WI Right to Life decision, the GOP 527s like the Ari Fleischer one, plus McCain's eagerness to game the system, I can't see how Obama can come to an effective arrangement with McCain.

Karen-

Money does not equal free speech in politics or anywhere else. If it did, then all of the bribery laws should be wiped off the books. That is just another Beltway myth that does not stand up to scrutiny.

What I don't get, however, is why we can't have instant disclosure, which it would seem is possible these days, technology being what it is. How come we have to wait months to see who gave what, or what is often more interesting, what got spent where? By the time we learn anything about it, the damage is already done.

Why is that we can't have instant disclosure? I hope you write more about this in the future because it's a very interesting issue.

The group Ari Fleischer is heading is Freedoms Watch. They aired all those ads from veterans, linking the war in Iraq with September 11 that were designed to rev up support before Petraeus made his report in September.

It isn't funded by just a billionaire, it is funded by many of them.

"The board consists of Bradley Blakeman; Ari Fleischer; Mel Sembler, a Florida Republican who was Bush’s ambassador to Italy; William P. Weidner, president and chief operating officer of the Las Vegas Sands Corp.; and Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

The donors include Sembler; Anthony Gioia, a Buffalo businessman who was Bush’s ambassador to Malta; Kevin Moley, who was Bush’s ambassador to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in Geneva; Howard Leach, a former Republican National Committee finance chairman who was Bush’s ambassador to France; Dr. John Templeton of Pennsylvania, chairman and president of the John Templeton Foundation; Ed Snider, chairman of Comcast Spectacor, the huge Philadelphia sports and entertainment firm; Sheldon Adelson, chairman of the Las Vegas Sands Corp. and ranked by Forbes magazine as the third-wealthiest American; and Richard Fox, who is chairman of the Jewish Policy Center and was Pennsylvania State Chairman of the Reagan/Bush campaign in 1980."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5479.html

http://www.freedomswatch.org/

See Media Matters on those Vet ads
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708240001

It is groups like this that make taking public financing a bad idea. Until the courts stop defining this as speech, subject to very little regulation, we will have this out of control spending on campaigns.

That is just another Beltway myth that does not stand up to scrutiny.

I dunno, smedley, I tried to argue that in my Con Law class, and I didn't get too far. It leads to policy results that I don't like, but I can't say that it's wildly stupid.

Seriously, what has the idea that money=speech done for this country?

If nothing else, its the origin of the phrase "voting with your pocketbook".

Here's a comment I posted over at Glenn's in response to someone who was advocating for fines levied whenever someone winger on the radio called for someone to be tried for treason:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/20/obama/permalink/b0bf7a72467d5a5f30d90b838324e6e1.html

Do I need to mention that a big part of the Right Wing MO is to set themselves up as victims? Any thing that point in the direction of LESS Free Speech is certain to backfire.

We can pretend that it would be nice to silence certain particularly obnoxious voices, but the sad fact is that your idea of offensive and mine might be 180 degress apart from each other and there's not a single person on the planet I would trust to try to split the difference.

The "marketplace" metaphor might not be popular among liberals, but the best way to arrive at truth is to let the maximum number of people available work on the problem.

To reiterate, attempts to control certain ideas from getting out there results in this:

The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it.

And there's no denying that in todays climate. Money=TV=Speech.

Must read articles "Ready on Day One?" http://savagepolitics.com and "Barack Obama;s Apostasy" http://savagepolitics.com/?p=101.

BRILLIANT analysis!

So, someone, please tell me the difference between these two scenarios:

Brent Wilkes pays Duke Cunningham to write legislation that helps in a material way Wilkes' company.

AT&T pays Jay Rockefeller to write legislation that helps AT$T avoid costly lawsuits.

KT here--

Elvis: I should clarify something from that earlier comment:

My "banishment" by the McCain campaign, such as it was, didn't last long after that episode last summer. I was quite shocked when it happened, because there was nothing inaccurate in the story, and all the critical quotes were attributed. After I was denied access, I thought it was important for me to insist upon being the TIME reporter who covered them, at least for a long as they were refusing to deal with me (and I would have felt this way about any candidate). I also thought it was necessary to make public the fact that I had been denied access on the basis of my coverage. I haven't had any problems like that since.

Paul, what LibTex and some others in the pwoggie blogosphere advocate is repugnant to me... the last thing I want is a republican or Democratic government determining what is or isn't Fair to enforce any sort of Doctrine.

Public financing of all elections would be an enormous step forward. Not a panacea by any means, but an important step - and one which might make all the difference in terms of enablig the following steps.

Limiting the influence of money in politics seems like a no-brainer to me.

What kind of contortions did the Court undertake to come to the decision that money = speech? It seems to me that many high-school seniors could knock that down. Isn't the First Amendment rather egalitarian? And doesn't the introduction of money into the argument abrogate that egalitarianism?

Methinks it is just a way for the political class, to which the Justices belong, to hold onto it's power. But don't question Scalia about it. He'll have your recording of it destroyed so he can maintain deniability.

Banishment/Time out ToMAto/ToMAHto

KT here --

Smedley, it was in a case called Buckley v. Valeo, in 1976

http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court/buckley1.html

It upheld limits on contributions (to other people's campaigns), but said that spending was a form of constitutionally protected free speech.

What kind of contortions did the Court undertake to come to the decision that money = speech?

Well, you could read the decision yourself at Find Law - but you'd probably need to take a week off of work.

Hillary is the one!
Your little Obamanation cannot stop her!

Hillary owns the superdelegates, silly people, and she has lots of people who owe her and Bill BIGTIME!!!!!

When the chits are called in, FL and MI will give her those delegates and the supers will make up the difference.

I just hope that when it is all over you Obamabots will support our Hillary so she can defeat the Bush wannabe McCain and his evil plans for 100 more years of the illegal war for Halliburton!!!!

"I haven't had any problems like that since."

... since the second article was printed?
From the Dec 10, 2006 issue to the July 12, 2007 issue, that's seven months of the McBan. I honestly didn't realize the extent of that; didn't TIME magazine find that to be newsworthy?

"Doesn't ANYONE want to talk about my deep and wonky insights into the sorry state of the campaign finance laws, post the Wisconsin Right to Life case???"

Campaign finance laws were bad BEFORE the Wisconsin case, as seen by John McCain's shenanaigans. All that case does is allow the campaigns to spread their funds around rather than concentrating on the period where previously "outside forces" could not spend cash openly. Right now I think there's a logjam between conservative courts that don't support laws limiting campaign spending, and incumbent legislators that don't support laws increasing funding for potential opponents.

I think you need White House political power to get the next round of laws passed, and Supreme Court appointees who happen to find those laws constitutional. I also assume that it will be easier to pass laws increasing public funding than regulating private funding. Even when the latter are not ruled unconstitutional, new entities tend to be invented that are expressively developed to be free of the constraints of whatever regulations were just passed. If you're really in favor of regulating money, you really need to be passing a new law every few years to stay one step ahead of the accountants.

"Hey, maybe we should try to not drive away the one Swamplander that responds to reader comments regularly."

While Karen Tumulty deserves praise, Michael Scherer also participates regularly and Jay Newton-Small participates often enough.

I do think that when the question of whether Barack Obama has abandoned his proposal to persue an agreement with the Republican nominee about the public finance system in the general election comes up, one should point out that John McCain just gamed the public finance system in the primary.

This is a non-issue, a vaguely worded campaign sweet nothing -- not even a promise --whispered into the ears of an indifferent public. How odd, that McCain's major worming on this, one of his Signature Achievements, and one of the many, many things He has done that demonstrate what a straighttalkingstandupguy who cares deeply about good government He is, is ignored. But this, now this is discussion material. And even then, it's presented in a way favorable to Obama. Had Hillary been in Obama's position, I can imagine how this post would have been written. And it isn't pretty.

Hello, Karen, commenters-

Obama is considering the possibility of voluntarily throwing away his exponential advantage in campaign dollars. I was intrigued to see the comments from the head of the FEC, because he apparently views it in that light... There is the possibility that the Obama fundraising apparatus could be transferred to the DNC for post-September (I believe it was Jonathan Martin at the Politico who said that, although I'm not sure), but it would certainly be to McCain's advantage if a deal can still be struck...

This whole pledge vs no pledge or public financing vs no public financing misses the big picture here: small donor fundraising of the type Obama has perfected is far more consisent with the spirit of campagn finance reform then accepting public financing and trolling around for $2300 checks from lobbyists like Hillary and McCain do.

Think about it, folk. All of Obama's small donors have made him able to do virtually no big fundraisers this past month...whatever money is coming from big donors is hugely elispsed by the collective amounts of the small donors. What does this mean? Obama owes his success much less to fat cats than any other presidential campaign we have seen in modern history.

Think about that folks. When he makes a decision, he doesn't have to worry about pissing off some interest group...because he never has to rely on the big checks.

It's not the amount of money in politics that is a problem...it is the source. If it comes from regular people not demanding special favors, it is pure money If it comes from lobbyist, it is tainted.

For the media and McCain/HIllary to be criticizing Obama on campaign finance is absurd when they are much more beholden to special interests than he is. And if Obama does not need the taxpayers money, all the power to him..that saves the taxpayers.

It's one thing to weseal out of public financing because you are going to get gobs of money from fat cats. But Obama's approach is better than public financing...because it comes from the small dollar public voluntarily.

Karen:

Thank you so much for this excellent work.

I don't have any of the problems that the other commenters have with you not discussing McCain's chicanery in this post.

What I don't get, however, is why we can't have instant disclosure, which it would seem is possible these days, technology being what it is. How come we have to wait months to see who gave what, or what is often more interesting, what got spent where? By the time we learn anything about it, the damage is already done.

Damn straight. I am currently a technologist for a living. I can code nuts-and-bolts instant access to data when I need to. I'm telling you in my capacity as a professional that there is no technical reason whatsoever why we can't see expenditure disclosure instantaneously.

You've given us a great story with which to run as activists--not partisan activists, but citizens. I happen to think that all of these Bill of Rights thingies exist because the framers believed that the role of citizen was to be largely indistinguishable from "activist".

Thanks, KT. We'll take it from here--but let us know if you come up with anything before I do!

This whole pledge vs no pledge or public financing vs no public financing misses the big picture here: small donor fundraising of the type Obama has perfected is far more consisent with the spirit of campagn finance reform then accepting public financing and trolling around for $2300 checks from lobbyists like Hillary and McCain do.

Posted by RKA | February 20, 2008 5:50 PM

Yikes.

And there's no denying that in todays climate. Money=TV=Speech.

Posted by Paul Dirks | February 20, 2008 3:43 PM

And I would take the opposite side, and say that lack of money = no TV = no speech. And I would further say that no one is telling you you can't spend your money on getting your message out if you choose; but in the public interest, you just can't give it to a candidate for political office. Buy your own TV ads; pool your money with other peoples' and do what you want with it -- you just can't give it to candidates and make their megaphone so loud it drowns out other voices. Mike Bloomberg is mentioned as a candidate for president for almost no other reason than his potential to overwhelm the political process with his money. When we get to that point -- we might not be there yet, but we're close -- how long will the system survive?

Here's my take on the Obama "pledge" or whatever - he'd be crazy to go to this coming gun fight with anything less that a full fleet of destroyers, a box of bazookas, some sharks with laser beams in their eyeballs and a couple of spare nukes.

Besides, as someone says above, his money is coming from small donations, which is completely within the spirit of McCain-Feingold.

McCain should just shaddup.

Here's another reason McCain needs to shut up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

So, now, when we say that McCain is in bed with the special interests, we may be moving beyond metaphor.

If Obama wins the nomination and is stupid enough to fall for this "public financing" bit he will, and should loose the presidency.
The Republican party has proven itself the master at coordinating the messages of outside groups while keeping its fiscal distance on paper.
While the Democrats just whine.

McCain is being bought by the same money interests that gave us W, do we really think the maverick will reappear when this is all over?

Not likely - the straight talking maverick died in South Carolina in 2000.

For those who do not know:
"jncc1701" is a troll attempting to impersonate movement conservatives' stereotype of a "liberal" for its own meager entertainment's sake.

Again with the spoofing.

Assclown.

For those who do not know:
"stuart_zechman" is a troll attempting to impersonate movement conservatives' stereotype of a "liberal" for its own meager entertainment's sake.

Great post. And getting barred from McCain's campaign is another reason to like you. I'm becoming a fan -- you handled that just right.

RKA has a good point, the large amount of smaller contributions to Obama has made press before, and makes it less likely he has to worry about special interests.

smedley: "So, someone, please tell me the difference between these two scenarios:

Brent Wilkes pays Duke Cunningham to write legislation that helps in a material way Wilkes' company.

AT&T pays Jay Rockefeller to write legislation that helps AT$T avoid costly lawsuits."

Or, for that matter, Big Labor pays various Congressmen to introduce legislation to circumvent the requirement for secret ballots in union elections.

Money in politics is not just a Republican problem; it is endemic.

I agree with many of the posters that far too much weight has been placed on the money=free speech argument. I view that as a convenient Constitutional cover for politicians' efforts to keep a system that strongly favors incumbents. Free speech is important - very important - but it is not sacrosanct. The SCOTUS has approved sensible limits in the past, such as the famous restriction on the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Given the clear damage that lobbyist and campaign money has done to our democracy, I think it's high time that we considered some reasonable restrictions.

The subject of a very wonderful and distinct I thank you for continuing excellence Thank you ضحك, ليبيا, شباب ليبيا, احاديث نبوية, السيرة النبوية, برامج اسلامية, صوتيات اسلامية, خواطر, غرائب وعجائب, الشعر الشعبى, قصص, اللغات الاجنبية, تعلم الفرنسية, تعلم الانجليزية, الطب تقنية الاسنان, كتب طبية, طب الاعشاب, اناقة وجمال, اناقة الرجال, الاسرة والمجتمع, الطبخ, اثاث وديكور, مقاطع كورة, الدوري الليبي, المصارعة, الكرة العربية, الكرة العالمية, رسائل خيانة مسجات عادية منتديات, الدوري الاسباني, الدوري الانجليزي, الدوري الايطالي, اخبار المشاهير, افلام اجنبية, مسلسلات اجنبية, تحميل افلام, افلام عربية, تحميل مسلسلات عربية, افلام كرتون, برامج, برامج الفيديو, اخبار التكنولوجيا, شبكات الحاسوب, تطوير المواقع, تطوير المنتديات, محادثة, صور, الفوتوشوب, برامج الفوتوشوب, التصميم, برامج الجوال, كليبات جوال, نغمات نوكيا, نغمات عربية, نغمات اسلامية, العاب الجوال, مسجات, القنوات الفضائية, مسجات عن الغياب تحميل برامج free Download مسلسلات, تحميل برامج مجانية تحميل افلام اجنبية, شفرات, كروت الساتلايت, الرسيفرات, خلفيات للجوال, نغمات اجنبية, برامج الجوال الجيل الثالث, ترحيب games Make Money مسجات ليبية مسجات رومانسية مسجات روعة مسجات حب مسجات عتاب مسجات جديدة مسجات ليبية رسائل رومانسية مسجات مصرية مسجات سعودية مسجات اماراتية مسجات بحرينية مسجات تونسية مسجات سورية مسجات شبابية مسجات مغربية مسجات جزائرية مسجات سودانية مسجات قطرية مسجات لبنانية مسجات عن الامتحانات مسجات حب مسجات غزل رسائل شوق مسجات شوق مسجات فراق مسجات غرام مسجات صداقة مسجات حزن مسجات عشق مسجات مقالب مسجات جوال مسجات وداع مسجات اسلامية مسجات مدح رسائل الوسائط مسجات عاطفية مسجات نقال مسجات صلح مسجات انجليزية مسجات تسامح مسجات الصباح مسجات نكت مسجات ضحك مسجات حلوة مسجات الحزن مسجات موبايل مسجات الجوال مسجات للموبايل مسجات للحبيبة مسجات كبرياء مسجات عتاب C.Ronaldo باب الحارة سنوات الضياع نكت مسلسل نور prison break messi Kaka منتدى الكساد منتديات الكساد توم وجيري عدنان ولينا Youtube AlWafi Office تعلم الفوتوسوب Photoshop نقار الخشب هايدي كونان الجاسوسات سبيستون kaspersky مسجات يمنية مسجات عراقية مسجات فلسطينية مسجات العيد مسجات ليبية مسجات غرامية مسجات فراق مسجات كويتية رسائل غزل

بلوتوث - -
يوتيوب -
افلام -
مدونة - -
العاب بنات - -
Mzaeen’s Weblog - -
يوتيوب - فيديو - بلوتوث - -
تحميل افلام -
مركز تحميل - -
العاب لعب العب - -
منتديات بيت حواء -
ازياء - -فساتين زفاف 2008 -
موضة -فساتين -
6 -6-p-4 -6-p-9 -6-p-12 -أجمل فساتين -
فساتين بنات -فساتين ناعمة -
بيجامات ناعمه -فساتين قصيرة -
قمصان نومفساتين -
ملابس ناعمه -بجامات بنوتات -
فستان زفاف -ملابس اطفال -أكسسوارات -
ملابس 2008 -أزياء صيفية -فساتين -موضة 2009 -
أزياء بنات حلوة 2008 -موضة 2008 -
كولكشن صيفي -فساتين سهرة 2008 -فساتين زفاف 2008 -
موديلات فساتين -فساتين سهرة 2008 -
فساتين روعة 2008 -شورتات -
ديور -عروس -أزياء بنوتيه -ازياء -
فساتين السهرة -قمصان النوم -بلايز -
ازياء خطيره -ازياء نواعم -
أزياء للحوامل -أزياء حوامل -
اكسسوارات -ميك اب -
مكياج -72 -72-p-3 -72-p-5 -
72-p-7 -72-p-9 -
قصات شعر 2008 -مكياج ناعم -صور سلاسل -
مكياج -MaKe Up -
تسريحه روعه -العروس -
دبل الخطوبة -ساعات -
نقوش حنه -صور مكياج -
مكياج بنات ناعم -احلى التسريحات -
احلى القصات -اسرار العطور -
صور ميك اب -صور مكياج -
ميك اب روعه -صيف 2008 -
ميك اب -صور تسريحات 2008 -
تسريحات شعر قصير -تسرحيات شعر طويل -
تسريحات وقصات شعر -تسريحات شعر -قصات شعر -
شنط ماركات -صور مكياج -
تسريحات 2008 -صور احلى مكياج -
مكياج عروس 2008 -أحزمة بنات -
بطاقات زواج -ميك اب ناعم -
مكياج للبنات 2008 -مكياج للبنات -احلى مكياج بنات -
مكياج بنات -ميك اب 2008 -
تسريحة العروس -تسريحات شعر -تسريحات عرايس -
احدث القصات -صبغات 2008 -نضارات شمسيه -
تسريحات -مناكير -
اكسسوارات للبنوتات -احذية كريستيان -
احذية ديور Dior -سلاسل قلوب -
ديكور -غرف نوم -اثاث -
73 --73-p-3 --73-p-5 -
غرف نوم -غرف نوم بنوتيه -ديكورات -غرف نوم وردي -اكسسوار حائط -ورق جدران -
كوشات عروسه -ديكورات ماء -
مطابخ روعة -عالم البنوتات -
عالم البنات -ديكورات روعه -
غرف اطفال -مسابح -مكاتب وجلسات -مغاسل منزليه -
مخدات رومنسية -مغاسل حمام -
مخدات -صور ديكورات مطابخ -
ديكورات مطابخ 2008 -احلى ديكورات مطابخ -
ديكورات حمامات -اثاث 2008 -صور فلل -
ديكورات صالة -قصور واثاث -
معجنات -حلويات -اكلات -مطبخ -
طبخ -38 -
38-p-6 -38-p-9 -38-p-12 -38-p-3 -
38-p-14 -صور حلى -
صور حلويات -عمل بوفيه -
حلويات الجلكسي -حلا جالكسي بالصور -
حلى وحلويات -صور كيك -
صور تورتة - حلويات -اعشاب -
تغذية -رجيم -
طب -صحة -
71 -71-p-5 -
71-p-3 -71-p-7 -
التدليك -المساج -
جميلات العرب -اليسا - -
صور طبيعية -صور قلوب - -
صور رومنسية -بلوتوث مزايين - -البوم صور مزايين - -
صور ماسنجر -وسائط - -
صور حب -
صور بنات -صور بنات للمسن - -
العاب مكياج و ميك اب - -العاب ازياء - -العاب مغامرات - -
العاب بنات - -العاب تلبيس بنات - -العاب باربي - -
العاب بلياردو - -العب - -العاب -

العاب - -العاب فلاش - -66 - -
العاب بنات - -العاب أزياء - -
العاب مكياج - -العاب ميك اب - -
العاب باربي للبنات - - العاب باربي - -
العاب تلبيس - - العاب بنات - -
مكياج ملكة - العاب مكياج - -العاب اميرة - مكياج وميك - -
مكياج باربي كين - العاب - -لعبة مكياج الأميرات العاب - -
مكياج الفتيات العاب - -لعبة كاونتر سترايك -
لعبة مكياج فتاة جميلة -مكياج الورود لعبة مكياج - -
العاب أزياء - العاب بنات -العاب مكياج و ميك اب العاب لعب جديدة وحصرية - -
لعبة سوبر ماريو - -دراجون بول للتحميل لعبة - -
العاب باربي - العاب باربي - -لعبة حرامي السيارات - لعبة GTA - San Andreas - -
تلبيس الجاسوسات الثلاث -العاب بنات - العاب تلبيس -
لعبة تسديد على الزجاجه - -لعبة Medal Of Honor لعبة اتارى العاب فلاش -لعبة الدودة العاب فلاش -
لعبة بلياردو حديثة -لعبة توصيل الطماطم -
ميك اب و اكسسوارات للبنات -لعبة ميك اب متنوع -
ملابس المهنة لعبة للبنات - -لعبة تنس المضرب - -
لعب : ميك اب فتيات - -مكياج شتوي لعبة بالفلاش - -ترتيب غرفة في المنزل -
لعبة اكس او x-o - -لعبة الرجل الطائر -لعبة توم و جيري العاب -
البيت المرعب الفلاشية -تصوير الفنانات لعبة - -صندوق الكنز لعبة فلاشية -
لعبة روليت كازينو -لعبة الصبر - -فري سل لعبة الذكاء -
لعبة بلوت سوليتير -لعبة تركيب القطة بوسى -لعبة كرة قدم فلاشية -لعبة الرجل الأخضرالفلاشية - -لعبة الطائرة المجنونة -
لعبة دهس الناس بالسيارات -لعبة الشبح والاشباح -
لعبة تعليم الطبخ - -لعبة مكياج للبنات -
تلبيس الباربي بالفلاش - -لعبة Prison Break بريزن بريك - -
قيادة دراجة السكوتر من احلى العاب السباقات - -لعبة سباق السرعة - -
سباق سيارات لعبة حلوة - لعبة شطرنج لمحبيها فقط -
العاب فلاش لعبة قتال النينجا - -المحارب اليوناني - -
لعبة مصارعة رومانية -محارب الاشباح تعال اذا - -
لعبة سوبر مان - -قتال الليل لعبة فلاشية -
ماتركس لعبة حلووة -العاب لعب العاب بنات العاب باربي العاب متنوعة العاب اكشن العاب تسلية - -
لعبة اختبر ذاكرتك -مونوبولي لعبة الشراء والاحتكار وعربية - -
لعبة الاختلافات بين الصور - -حرب السفن البحرية - -
من سيربح المليون - -لعبة السلالم - -
قوة الفا لعبة طائرات - -Tribes 3 Vengeance كاملة - -
لعبة الجواهر المتشابهة -حرب السفن لعبة فلاشية - -
لعبة الاعداء - -لعبة الجمباز - -لعبة كرة السله بالشارع -
لعبة ميك اب فلة make up fulla - -لعبة تلبيس بنات - -
لعبة تحدي ودم للرركب اعرف عدوك من حبيبك -
1234567
1314815102130