Obama promised in 2007 and early 2008 to participate in Federal Financing, conditioned on his opponent doing the same. He now won't because the system is broken.

What is broken now that was not broken when he made that promise? Certainly not the 527's he referenced which played a major part in 2004's election.

Obama's core message is change, including how politics are done. Being the first candidate since Watergate to opt out of the Federal system and not being honest about is not change we can believe in.

He promised to negotiate with his opponent, not that he would guarantee participation in public financing.

It would help if you would be honest about the facts. He is also not accepting money from Pacs, but only from individuals. That, in itself, is change.

Obama's core message is change...

So he changed his mind. It was a smart move. I hope it won't make John McCain cry -- like his first wife did when he dumped her for a young heiress. That's an important vow. Agreeing to negotiate campaign financing is not on that level. McCain hasn't been willing to negotiate in good faith anyway. This was hardball politics and Obama didn't flinch.

Ask McCain about his first asking for public funding then refusing it during the primary season.

This is what he said, according to Newsweek:
Asked last September on a questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network whether he would "participate in the presidential public financing system" if his "major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign," Obama checked the box marked "yes," then outlined his vision for the 2008 contest. "In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election," he wrote. "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... If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

He didn't & that's clear.

obama has just PROVEN he is just another politician and nothing special

he banged hillary over the head for staying on the ballot in michigan saying she broke the rules and had signed an agreement on how the primaries worked....the fact was it was NOT against the rules to stay on the ballot in michigan...so he LIED about that

NOW obama , who DID make a promise on public financing , is now breaking it for his OWN political purposes

i hate to say i told you so

but I TOLD YOU SO!!!!

hope and change my butt

obama said in this questionaire that he had been a LONG time advocate for public financing

<link>

<link>

Obama wrote: "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."

Since there is no agreement on 527's we have no idea what anyone attempted. There is also no agreement on how much the parties would spend. Since the republican party has $50m and the dems about $5, could that be part of the problem?

McCain was out of public financing, then when he was broke he was back in again, then he was out until the FEC threatened him and I guess he is back in again.....

This is a non-issue to me and certainly, given the source of Obama's campaign money, not indictative of any sort of corruption.

So at least there is not much to your fig leaf of being a democrat.....why pretend?

The PURPOSE of public financing for elections was to reduce the undue influence of a relatively few ultra-rich. This undue influence was especially egregious because so much of it was lies and smears. Senator John Kerry was its most recent victim at the presidential level.

The public financing part of the presidential campaigns is only one part of the total financing. And the anti-democracy, corporate fascist part of the GOP has proven itself willing to spend vast amounts through the OTHER avenues. That was how they funded the key smears and lies against John Kerry that appeared to turn that election.

The GOPirates have proven they will violate all ethics and even laws to win the election. John McCain has already said he has no control over the GOP 527 groups. Meanwhile, Obama has asked MoveOn.org to suspend their 527 for the election, and they have complied.

So Obama must balance his campaign financing not only against McCain's public campaign finances, but also against all the ultra-rich GOPirate groups who will attack with unrestricted funds throughout the election.

Obama would have to be a FOOL to refuse PAC money (as he has done), curtain friendly 527 money (as he has done), and then restrict his campaign budget to match the public financing PART of McCain's money. CLEARLY Obama is trying to curtail the avenues for smear and lie style campaigning by setting an example. But he NEVER said he would put himself at a big financial disadvantage to do this.

"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." <link>

What puzzles me are why such major media people as John Dickerson, Charles Gibson, and Gwen Ifil insist that Obama "broke his promise". Are these people incapable of nuance? Or too lazy to go on the web and piece together the full story? Or too beholden to corporate forces (perhaps advertisers at PBS)?

My hunch is that they are afraid for their jobs. So Gwen Ifil thinks, "I know it's ridiculous to report that Obama broke a promise here, but the right-wing will spin this easily and hammer it so hard most people will think he did. It'll be too hard to swim against the tide, plus they'll slam me for trying, so I'll just pretend to go along on this one."

Personally, I do not doubt Obama's committment to reducing big-money control of government, including campaign finance reform. It seems to me he is not getting suckered by deadly opponents.

Agreed......the very fact that Obama's campaign is fueled by small donations from the voters is an incredible change in politics. It gives me reason to hope.

On the day Obama announced his decision the only 527 ads running in PA were his. So far during this election Dem 527 have spent more than rep 527's. They can say they do not agree with those messages but they can not directly speak to them so essentially they have no control. The believe that the candidate has any control on these groups is a myth.

47% of Obama's donations are under $200. so the majority is greater than that. His ability to raise money on a widespread base is impressive And I guess could bode well for him being able to act independently.

However, I have a bit of cynicism when i hear that a good deal of his money is coming from bundler's who are employee's of lobby groups. You can argue that even members of lobby groups would choose him or you can argue that they are raising this money to hide the fact that he is getting money from lobby groups and they feel it is worth it because he will not be able to do a thing about lobby groups.

I am highly suspect about his being able to reign in lobby groups influence unless there is public financing up and down the board. Many Reps and Senators cannot raise the money that Obama has and depend on funding that comes through these groups. To cut that out would essentially be slitting their throats. Now that Obama has walked away from public financing how can he argue they should jump on board to doing it for themselves.

It is a very complicated mess with Obama talking about it being a problem although I think some of his arguments are intentionally misleading.

The number of 527's running ads today has little to do with who will be running ads by November. The 527 which had the most impact in 2004 was funded by one guy.

Remember that bundlers persuade others to write checks. If I invite a handful of my friends to my house and get them to donate to Obama, I am a bundler. How can that be prevented? Should it be prevented? How would the candidate know? What is the difference between money from a pac and money from a bundler? One of the ways that lobbyists were gaining influence in the DeLay days was by hiring republican congressional aides or cronies. They would also donate to the candidates favorite charity or their presidential library fund or places where there was less FEC oversight. Tom DeLay had his own pac. Lobbyists would donate to that and then Tom would direct donations from that pac to other republican congressmen or to their pacs and then the money makes it back around again.

My point about bundler's is that if they work within a lobby group, why would they work to raise money for someone who is implying that he will put them out of business. Would you raise money for someone who threatens your job. I think not. I think that it is in some ways hypocritical to get money from these people and then act as any association with a lobbyist is or should be criminal. Just because it is shielded by a few layers does not change the logic behind it.

Should they be prevented? No. I think getting reform has to be a tricky issue because I think that everyone should have a right to support a candidate. I think that it would be best if they had to run on money or services provided from either governement or a pooled source but that has to go against freedom of speech so fixing one problem presents another.

I think his change of opinion was strictly a strategic move. Nothing in the way of 527's has changed in the last month other than there probably will be more activity from the Dem side.

I think the decision was the result of some simple math. The parties numbers to be sure, but their belief that they could raise enough to outspend McCain by a multiple of 2 or 3. So I think that his explanation was total BS. But this is not an issue for me because there are several actions in his past that show he will do what is in his best interest irregardless of any moral or ethical reasons to do otherwise.

Starting with his elimination of all competition when running for state office. It was according to the rules but in my mind he eliminated the voice of the people to insure that there was no way he would not win. Perhaps because of my athletic background I think that winning by insuring you do not have to compete is not winning at all.