Home
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mail
Sen. Barack Obama has announced that he would opt out of the public financing (and the spending limits attached to it) for the general election. Good for him!
I think there is a profound confusion in terminology when it comes to presidential campaign financing.
Obama rejects campaign contributions from federal lobbyists and political action committees (PAC). Instead, in his fund-raising, he relies on a network of 1.5 million individual contributors. Of the $263 million Obama has raised so far, 47% (or 93% of the total 3 million contributions) came in amounts of $200 or less.
This is an impressive sign of tremendous public support for his campaign. And yet, for some mysterious reasons this money is called “private.”
On the contrary, the $84.1 million per candidate of the so-called “public money” is in reality federal money collected as the $3 check-off on federal tax returns. Why on earth this money is called “public”? The correct term here would be “government.”
In 2008, the U.S. federal government will spend about $20 billion on what it is calling “general government.” I assume part of this money will go to funding activities of the President of the United States: his staff, security, travel, etc. Now, we are told that we should fund activities of people who want to become the President of the United States.
Why? Those people are not poorer than the average American taxpayer. Why should I fund a limping campaign of a guy who is unable to raise money himself and whose political views I don’t share? Are there not other projects to pour into $168.2 million that would otherwise be wasted on stupid TV ads?
Pundits say that by his decision, Obama has brought the “public” financing system on the edge of extinction. Good for him again!
RSS 
It seems that both you and Obama are equally amoral, not surprising in someone raised in the USSR. But here in America, some people believe morality matters. And, after all, the USSR no longer exists.
If you are suggesting that every candidate is exactly as manipulable as every other, that’s the raving of an insane person. I leave you to your delusions.
It’s fun arguing with you, but your latest comment has left me puzzled.
First, it was your notion that ”The tax dollars are VOLUNTARILY given. Nobody is forced to pay a single cent.” It’s absolutely for the first time that I hear that in the U.S., taxes are ”VOLUNTARILY given.” On the second thought, given your status as a ”full-time” blogger...perhaps, there are some exemptions. After all, what taxes can be taken from from a blogger?
Second, this line of yours, ”And, after all, the USSR no longer exists.” Neither in my post or in my comment did I mention the USSR. Is it possible that you had different post in mind when commenting on mine?
Finally, you say, ”Your post is totally devoid of any real information.” I suspect that the issue of campaign finance reform requires some sophistication that you obviously lack. In the future, stick to woman tennis and Michelle Obama, girl.
PS: The Russian football team has just beaten the Netherland and advanced to the semifinal of Euro 2008. Before the game, your best pal, Masha Sharapova, wished the players good luck. Boy, she looked good! Much better than you on your recent side-by-side-with-Putin photo:
http://kimzigfeld.instablogs.com/entry/signs-of-the-apocalypse/
Girl, you can use some make up, really!
Thank you for your comment.
I would definitely agree with you. Calling things their proper names does not necessarily win you elections. But it’s sign of a decent, mature person.
Best Regards,
Eugene
I don’t know what planet you are on, but ALL MONEY, 100% of it, that is given to candidates to pay for elections comes from A VOLUNTARY CHECKOFF on the income tax return. It is totally up to the tax payer whether to support public funding, and taxes do not change regardless of whether the taxpayer supports it or not.
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of Americans freely check that box choosing to give part of their tax bill to public funding, approving the process. Nobody forces them to do it, and their taxes do not increase one penny because of public financing. Read at least a little about your subject before you pontificate about it.
Please stop lying to Instablogs readers. Your demented ravings embarrass this publication.
Obama isn’t rejecting public funding because of any philosophical criticism of it. To the contrary, he said only a short time ago that he would use public funding. He could have made campaign finance reform an issue in his platform, but he didn’t.
Obama is simply saying that he can get more money for his campaign without using public funding. In other words, he’s acting out of calculated self interest. And the only reason he can do it is because the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Congress, which banned him from doing so.
Congress acted because the nation had decided it didn’t want so much corrupting influence of money in the process, and wanted candidates to spend more time talking about issues and less time raising money. Now, Obama has set the precedent for that money to flow back into the process and corrupt it. It’s all well and good for Obama himself, but what about the next Democrat who comes along and can’t raise money as effectively as Obama, and gets swamped by contributions to Republicans from the wealthy they are said to serve? It seems Obama couldn’t care less about that, or anything else other than himself.
You didn’t even try to present the full issue, merely spewed forth a one-sided propaganda screed. Shameful. Pathetic.
Thanks for your comment. I re-read my post and I suggest you do the same.
I don’t care why Obama made such a decision and I care even less that he’s changed his position on campaign financing. If you were as experienced in politics as you think you are, you wouldn’t be surprised that politicians change their positions. And the higher office they’re running for, the more often they do that.
My point was that the whole system of ”public” financing is a sham. There is no any single reason why tax dollars should be used to promote political ambitions of private citizens. They should raise money by themselves. After all, the ability to raise money is a good indicator of a candidate’s popularity and his/her management prowess.
And if the next time a Republican will outspend a Democrat, so much better for the country: changing parties in the White House is a healthy thing.
Regards,
Eugene
PS: As to your PS, you’re wrong: Vladimir Putin ”can easily manipulate” any American president :)