I'm prefacing this thread with the statement that I sincerely do not follow the argument. I'm hoping someone can clarify for me what the moral problem is with not accepting public funds. Here's the situation as I understand it (again, this is by gathering bits and pieces, and may be partially or entirely incorrect, so feel free to jump in and tell me I'm wrong).

There are public monies available for campaigning.

There are also private monies available for campaigning.

Obama opted out of using public monies, because the private monies he was getting from individual supporters were sufficient to his needs.

Can someone please explain why that's a problem? I don't understand why this is a moral issue. I do understand that he said he would use the public monies and then opted out, so there is a question of breaking his word there. I completely follow that argument. I do not understand why accepting public monies should be better than using private monies.

I realize that campaign finance reform is designed to deny candidates the ability to net huge sums from private interests that would then presumably have a president beholden to them. However, seeing as Obama's fundraising has been targeted to getting small donations from everyday people, I don't believe that's the issue on the table.

Or is it?

Looking for guidance, not smearing. If we could get this thread to be a serious analysis of the situation, as opposed to a mud-slinging session, I'd very much appreciate it. I'd like to understand what the problem is here.

Thanks to all and sundry who can give me some insight on this.

It breaks tradition. Seriously. That is just about the only problem with it.

It also shows that Obama can change his mind -- so you can't hold him to past gaffes as if they were died-in-wool personality traits.

I find both points refreshing -- and essential parts of his "Change We Can Believe In" message.

However, other folks find both these traits and Obama's message scary.

Beathan

To understand Barack Obama's position, you have to understand that public financing does not cap total campaign spending. "Independent" groups like the notorious 527's can spend as much as they can raise.

In this particular campaign, John McCain will rely almost exclusively on "independent" groups to front the GOP dirty campaign of fear and smear. Fear and smear is McCain's only path to the White House given that all of the substantive issues favor Obama.

A GOP dirty campaign of fear and smear works, as Al Gore and John Kerry will attest. Obama's best counter-strategy will be to make a big campaign issue of the Republican fear and smear machine. That will require more money than public financing will provide.

Creirwy;

Let me explain why this is a big deal. By the way, I support Obama's decision, but it is a compromise. I am sure it was a tough decision for him to make. And I respect a tough decision that will enable us to win.

The purpose of public funding is, in part, to prevent fat cats form deciding elections. Of course, times have changed and Obama has changed the method for raiising huge sums. To his credit, there is certainly a distinction between raising hundreds of millions of dollars from small donors and raising the same amount form large donors.

But these laws had a larger, more profound purpose, some of what has been gutted by candidates with personal fortunes and the proliferation of 527's. That's Obama's stated point this year. In fact, although I am willing to overlook this because I admire his serious focus on winning in this crucuial year, I also know that this (the fact that 527's and rich candidates have become loopholes) is not really the reason for his decision. The reason is that he wants the enormous financial advantage he will get.

The purpose of these laws has always been to provide avenues for candidates with limited fundraising ability to get thier ideas heard. The fact that Obama can raise money on the internet does not change this purpose. Yes, he will not be beholden to special interests, but neither would a wealthy candidate who bankrolls his or own campaign.

Some of the best candidates (Biden, Edwards) turned out to be terrible fundraisers this year. The fat cat money went to HIllary Clinton. If it were not for the phenomenon of Obama's special appeal to internet voters, Clinton would be the nominee.

This is true also with incumbents vs. challengers. Ninety-seven percent of incumbents win because all the money flows to them regardless of their records. A good public finance system would give challengers the ability to be heard.

What Obama did is legal and even foreseen in the voluntary general election program. But it is a shame that he has to abandon this good program. The press controversy is over whether he broke his promise to try to use the system, not whether he opted out or not. But my concern is the effect it will have on future reforms.

Spin it as you will, but he clearly went back on his word, as just about every media outlet in America (including even -- yes! GASP --) Slate clearly has stated. You Obama apologists are so phony with your pseudo-naive "questions."

You fool no one.

Who's trying to fool anyone? Is lying and changing your mind the same thing? Is anyone going to care about this a week from now?

Interesting. I'm still having trouble following the pros and cons here. If Obama had chosen to accept public monies, would that have put a cap on the private monies he was allowed to spend?

I can see the purpose behind campaign finance reform that takes power away from large special interests, including business. To a certain degree, I can also understand why it can be problematic for wealthy candidates to fund their own campaigns, because they then become, in a sense, their own special interest group. I'm having a little trouble with that argument simply because I'm not sure if it's fair to handicap the wealthy because of their wealth. Though I will say that historically independently wealthy candidates have won for that reason, and it seems to me to be a poor one.

If Obama wants to use monies he got from his supporters, who are, last I checked, the 'public', I don't think that's a huge moral issue in and of itself. He seems to be holding to a principle I can support there.

That he changed his mind on this issue does not, frankly, trouble me overmuch. I prefer a candidate who can change his mind with sound reasoning to one who continues to insist that he never made a mistake.

Oh, and Cialis? Bite me. If I don't know enough to debate an issue, I ask. This is called 'educating oneself'. You may care to give it a whirl sometime. I am bewildered as to how you see asking a question as 'spinning', but suit yourself. I don't contest that he went back on something he said earlier. I don't contest that he changed his mind. I will note, however, that one of the marks of an intelligent person is one who is willing to do so. I'm not giving him carte blanche to go back on campaign promises, but I think he's keeping to the spirit of the finance reform, if not the letter.

Creiwry;

FYI, the reason the wealthy and the 527s' are exceptions is that the Supreme Court has held that it would be unconstitutional to prohibit a 527 or an individual candidate from spending political cash. Money is considered political speech.

Even limits on contributions, which have been upheld by the courts, have been questioned. But the finance laws which provide direct public financing are purely voluntary.

Thus, in the general election, for example, the candidates have a choice of accepting $84 million in public money, or raising their own cash. So Obama could not have it both ways. The reason Obama changed his mind, of course, is that he figured out he could raise about $300 million on his own. His internet operation is a money machine.

By the way, although general election candidates have accepted the money for decades, George W. Bush defeated John McCain in 2000 (in the Republican primaries) by opting out of the primary public financing system. So this is not completely unprecedented. And McCain is bound to be very sensitive about it.

Furthermore, McCain does not have clean hands on this either. Earlier this year, he promised to accept primary public financing in order to secure a loan from a bank. But when he started doing better, he pulled out of the public financing system (probably illegally) and took the loan anyway.

On the other hand, Obama is not being criticized just for changing his mind. The argument is that he used his pledge to win votes and then turned around and reneged on the promise. To be truthful, although you are right that this is not the first or last time a politician has done such a thing, it is a fair criiticism.

All in all, I think he would have been dumb to make any other decision. In fact, Democratic leaders and the press would have pointed to an acceptance of the public funds as a sign of weakness. He's nobody's patsy.

chrisbz has highlighted another aspect to this pseudo-issue. In the four months between now and November, the media writers have hundreds of column-inches to fill and the media talking heads have hundreds of hours of bloviating to do.

This happens to be the story of the week. Our soldiers continue to die in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our economy continues to tank. But this is old news. Next week the media herd will move on to the next shiny new object that catches their attention.

OMFG, Cialis! Fine: he went BACK ON HIS WORD! YES. YOU ARE RIGHT! YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT! That's right: I admit it: OBAMA went BACK on his WORD, and BECAUSE he did so, PEOPLE DIED, and SOLDIERS were SERIOUSLY INJURED, and ELDERLY CITIZENS became GRIEVOUSLY ILL, and PEOPLE LOST THEIR HOMES. And CHILDREN WERE ABANDONED. And the U.S. lost its TERRITORIAL SUPREMACY. And I ACCIDENTALLY SPILLED COCA-COLA ON A MAGAZINE I WAS READING. ALL because OBAMA went BACK on his WORD (you'd think he'd gone back on his word to NOT eat the still-beating hearts of newborns, to hear you talk).

But he didn't LIE. The term "lying" connotes that you are making a statement you know to be false at the time. Clearly, Obama did not know that the statement he was making was false (unless you believe Obama can predict the future, in which case you are the Obamaniac, not me). So he did not LIE. He didn't even "break a promise," since he didn't promise or swear that he would accept public financing. So the best you can say is that he "went back on his word," or possibly "flip-flopped." And, guess what: we're all just fine.

This horse has been beaten so badly, it's not just dead, it's pulverized.

SalientMan:

This horse has been beaten so badly, it's not just dead, it's pulverized.

"I slaughtered this horse last Tuesday. I think it's startin' to turn. "

Washington Hogwallop

Cialis:

Spin it as you will, but he clearly went back on his word, as just about every media outlet in America (including even -- yes! GASP --) Slate clearly has stated. You Obama apologists are so phony with your pseudo-naive "questions."

You fool no one.

People like this guy, and all the Obama-haters (emphasis on haters), never seem to let the facts get in the way of their rants.

Millions of people care about it ... and as much, because it is part of his pattern, as anything else. He has flip-flopped, gone back on his word, evaded, denied and twisted ... as much as any 'old-style' politician like he claims NOT to be.

Cialis--

Obama breathes, eats, and defecates, too! Just like those "old style politicians" he claims not to be! Maybe you're onto something here!