Posts

I can't tell you how miserable I am to be spending my time writing a post about politics, but I can't let something like this slide without mentioning it here.

The issue is that Barack Obama has opted out of public funding for his presidential campaign after committing to support it during the Democratic primaries. In fact, less important to me is the question of whether or not he committed to public funding, than the inarguable fact that he is not using public funding. THe truth is that he did make such a commitment, but those attached to his campaign are now arguing the semantics of what was said with the sort of doublespeak that Orwell would be proud of. (Point of fact: Orwell did coin the term 'doublespeak'in 1984 but the idea is recognizable as one aspect of what Orwell referred to as 'newspeak' in the novel.)

These are separate issues:

• Should candidates use public funding
• Why is it a problem if Obama committed to using public funding and has now changed position

There are two ideas that must be established to understand why I think this is such an important issue.

1. What the hell is public funding of presidential elections?

   Without any prior knowledge that could mean any number of things.

2. Why is this such a big deal?

   After all this is a campaign/election issue which may be argued has little bearing on the more important questions related to Obama's performance if elected. (When I say performance I mean to include everything relevant to determining the effectiveness and the general goodness of a United States president.)

   Though may be possible to mount such an argument in favor of minimizing the importance of this issue, I think it's clearly a wrong position.

I had better get started. I'll keep this relatively brief, as is befitting a weblog post.

First, what is 'public funding of a presidential campaign'. Before I try to summarize what it is, I'll refer you to the official source of information about this topic.

From the introduction:

This brochure gives a brief history of Presidential election public funding and an overview of how the process works. The brochure also explains the ways individuals may support publicly funded Presidential candidates and the various materials on Presidential campaign finance available from the Federal Election Commission.

...

The brochure was written to help students, reporters and other members of the general public understand the basics of public funding. It was not written for Presidential candidates and committees that wish to apply for public funds. They should consult the federal public funding laws and Commission regulations.

The program dates back to 1976. However, the first legislation was enacted in 1966, and the idea was proposed in 1907 by then President Theodore Roosevelt in his State of the Union address along with a ban on private contributions.

In regards to contributions for major party nominees in the general election the brochure tells us:

A major party nominee who has accepted public funding for the general election may not accept any contributions to further his election. You may, however, help a publicly funded nominee by contributing to the candidate's compliance fund. A compliance fund is a special account maintained by publicly funded nominees solely for paying legal and accounting expenses incurred in complying with the campaign finance law.

So now we know what public funding is. The reasoning behind it is twofold (and should be somewhat obvious):

First, to even the playing field.

If all candidates have an equal amount of funds with which to conduct their campaigns then there is an inherent fairness about the process. Assuming everyone involved obeys the rules, it's not possible to win an election simply by outspending your opponent. It puts your opponent at a considerable disadvantage if (s)he has less of an opportunity to influence voters. This is especially true today when people are increasingly tuned into new media (primarily television and the web) rather than more traditional, and less expensive, outlets (newspapers, radio, and locally organized events and other initiatives). Like any good controlled experiment, if we want the results of the election to be based on a single key factor, namely the candidates demonstrated ability to best represent our collective interests, then we need to control all of the other significant factors that could skew the results. Money is certainly a significant contributing factor, and so something that should be controlled.

Secondly, it helps, to a small degree at least, to avoid the situation where the elected president might be indebted, figuratively and literally, to private parties and obligated to represent and tend to their interests above the greater good.

I don't know about you but that makes a lot of sense to me.

The amount we're talking about is nearly eighty-five (85) million dollars. Factoring in all of the money the candidates have already spent campaigning during the primaries, and the means that exist today which the candidates don't pay for (e.g. the countless global new outlets that cover US presidential election) how much should it cost to run for president?

This isn't a theoretical question. The bar set this year, with spending for the 2008 election, will impact the spending in 2012 and beyond. If this year's spending on television advertising alone may approach 3 billion dollars, what does it mean for the future?

It's just plain irresponsible to turn this into an financial arms race. If Roosevelt was capable of appreciating this in 1907 spending about $600,000 (approx 13 million dollars today considering inflation) then Obama should certainly know better today. Where are we going with this? Before either one steps into office these candidates are already creating their legacy. This first significant 'contribution' certainly does not bode well for the future of the United States.

Whether he has publicly committed to public financing or not, we should expect any candidate to be committed to the integrity of the political process, both now and in the future. Obama is demonstrating that he is more concerned with himself and his agenda than what's good for the country. It's a sad fact that has everything to do with realism and nothing to do with the sort of idealism he's sold his supporters.

The foundation of Obama campaign, and I would estimate the basis of his appeal as a candidate, hinges on the supposed sincerity of Obama the person, and the idealism conveyed by the message of hope that is the cornerstone of his campaign.

After all he doesn't have much of a track record. He has served only 2 years in the senate and was virtually unknown nationally until the Democratic National Convention a short four years ago. If we're going to hand the job to someone with so little experience, and with it the ability to impact the condition and quality of all of our lives, it had better be established exactly, and in no uncertain terms (1) what the guy proposes to do and (2) that there is sufficient reason to believe that he will follow through on those promises.

I'm choosing my words carefully.

In my mind it must be established in no uncertain terms and there must be sufficient reason to believe.

It's not enough simply to want to believe Obama's message because it sounds good. He deserves no credit for choosing to run this campaign. Given the current situation it is the obvious thing to do. The current president has made a mess of things and has been widely criticized (Bush's disapproval rating is currently something like 70%, which is worse than any other president). Suggesting that a change is needed is certainly obvious. And because Obama has not had time to establish himself as a politician, he can't argue that he is the person to shepherd us toward change (I apologize for the unfortunate religious sounding phrase) based on his experience and proven achievements. The best he can do is offer hope.

I'll point out that hope is a word that suggests more than it means. Hope can be used to mean no more than a desire for a certain thing to happen, or the idea of wanting something. Hope may sound good, but it's a pretty flimsy thing to pin the future of the country on. You can hope to win the lottery, but I would hardly describe that as a solid retirement plan. The sentiment is great but I would hope (there's that word again) that most people would tell him to shove it up his ass unless he can somehow demonstrate that it is well-founded.

It is too easy to suggest that change is the answer to a problem. Why? Because the need for change when something clearly isn't working is obvious, and recommending change is too vague to be meaningful.

This is one of the few, maybe the only example we will see of Obama's true commitment his campaign promises. Is the campaign based on responsible idealism or will all of his hope give way to the crushing pressures of reality? Hey I'm not suggesting that turning your back on a lot of money is easy to do. But it does anticipate just the sort of difficult moral challenges Obama is going to meet as President. What do you do with a decision like that? Do you take the high or the low road? With this decision, Obama has clearly chosen the easier path represented by the low road. That's disappointing, and there is no reason to assume that this is not indicative of what we can expect from President Obama.

What's more, the fallout from this decision, and the scramble to minimize its negative impact (by the way the technical term for this is 'spin'), reveals that Obama's campaign is the same sort of double-dealing, 'the ends justify the means' affair that have served politicians so well, and the country so poorly, for so long.

I've gone on about this for long enough. I do want to make a couple of short points in closing.

• We have already begun to pay the price for this deception. The democrats may have nominated a different candidate had Obama been honest about his intentions. That possibility has been taken from us. If enough undecided voters feel uneasy about it, it may cost the democrats the election. Even if we accept that Obama would have won the nomination in any case (which certainly is not a given) and it if doesn't cost Obama the election, it has called into question his fitness for the job. It steals from us some of that precious hope he is so fond of talking about.

• Asking supporters to individually fund his election, especially now at a time when so many Americans are struggling to provide their families with the necessities, is reprehensible considering that a) public funding is a legitimate if difficult proposition b) there is a real sense that what's at stake with this election is no less than the country's future, the survival of the American way of life, and the future security of our families.

  Whether that is a correct characterization or not is irrelevant. The appeals are no different then televangelists encouraging followers to send in every penny they have in exchange for the promise of good health, wealth, and security. It is especially despicable given Obama's message of hope and the sorts of people that message appeals to (i.e. people with not a lot left to give.) It is every American's obligation to vote, but we shouldn't have to feel responsible for directly funding our preferred candidates campaign. Maybe it's effective but it isn't the right thing to do.

I'm a democrat and have grave concerns about the prospect of John McCain as president. Unfortunately Obama is demonstrating that he is woefully inadequate and unprepared. Miscalculated, unsubstantiated optimism is a very discouraging thing to see in a leader.