[QUOTE]Obama About to Break His First General Election Promise By Patrick J. Casey On November 27th of last year, Common Cause released its Presidential candidate questionnaire on political reform, submitted to the Democratic candidates by the Midwest Democracy Network. Here are Questions 1-A and 1-B, with Barack Obama's answers:

Question I-A:

As President, would you support and work to enact legislation to strengthen, keep the same, or repeal the presidential public financing system?

OBAMA: Strengthen

Question I-B:
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 the 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 (DWI) 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. [emphasis added]

Seems like a pretty clear answer. A few months passed, and here's an excerpt from a Washington Post editorial from April 14th of this year. (What happened to Barack Obama's promise to rely on public financing in the general election?), when Barack Obama first seemed to waffle on his pledge on public financing:

Barack Obama held out the hope of salvaging part of the public financing system for presidential elections. Now he seems poised to drive a nail into it by rejecting the $85 million available to nominees who agree to take full federal funding for the general election. That may be understandable as a matter of campaign tactics; Mr. Obama sits atop a whirring money machine that appears capable of vacuuming up amounts far in excess of the federal check. But going back on his pledge to take public financing if the GOP nominee were to agree to do the same would be an unfortunate step -- and one that reflects badly on Mr. Obama.

Fast forward to today, and here's the headline from Mark Halperin's "The Page" blog at Time.com: Obama Has Cash Advantage, Expected to Bypass Federal Funding. Halperin links to an article at the Los Angeles Times website written by Janet Hook and Dan Morain, Obama has cash advantage over McCain, that reads less like a news story and more like an apologia for Obama's soon-to-be-broken promise. In fact, the article doesn't mention the Senator's previous promise once, although the information is readily available to anyone who knows how to use an internet search engine.

But Obama is such a strong fundraiser that he is expected to skip the system of federal election funding -- freeing him from the timing rules and spending caps that come with it. That will give the Illinois senator the ability to air television spots and organize field staff long before the traditional Labor Day start of general-election campaigning. Obama, for example, can use the money to introduce himself to Latino voters, a group that does not know him well even after the 16-month primary season.

Remember, Obama's original promise was to "return" all funds raised in excess of public financing limits. I wonder what Obama's excuse will be for this flip-flop?

"Today's public financing rules are not the public financing rules that I thought I knew", perhaps?

"Change", indeed. [/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/obama_about_to_break_his_first.html[/url]

And this is the beginning...

Re: Obama already breaking campaign promises

so let me get this straight...Obama rejects using taxpayer dollars....and that's a bad thing?

holy cow...

Re: Obama already breaking campaign promises

[QUOTE]If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.[/QUOTE]

As I understand it, no agreement has been reached on how to finance the election, so no promises have been broken yet, technically.

If I were McCain, I'd raise hell about this -- unfortunately, he's too busy quietly firing lobbyists and attending private fundraisers himself to do so. He's going to have a hard time getting that message out, too, in that Obama is leaving him in the dust in fundraising -- he's currently on pace to raise $100M [B]in June[/B]. :shock:

Re: Obama already breaking campaign promises

[quote=88Mariner;612411]so let me get this straight...Obama rejects using taxpayer dollars....and that's a bad thing?

holy cow...[/quote]

so it's ok when obama flip-flops on his decisions?

Re: Obama already breaking campaign promises

[QUOTE=shosh;612424]so it's ok when obama flip-flops on his decisions?[/QUOTE]

John McCain has cast aside every core conviction he ever had to pander to the far right. At the gun, I'd say it's about eleventy billion to one in terms of flip-flopping, if you can even call Obama's position that. Remember that he's still got an opportunity to make a fundraising deal with McCain -- he's only been the nominee for like 3 days, cut the dude some slack.

Re: Obama already breaking campaign promises

[quote=shosh;612424]so it's ok when obama flip-flops on his decisions?[/quote]

when it produces better results for the individual, yes.

For example, when Bob Barr realized how harmful the drug war has been, and how little of a success it has found, he went from being the number one anti-drug person, to a more sensible position on drug reform. Is that flip-flopping? Yes, but is it beneficial? yes.

Now, if Obama had said i'm going to raise money only by private individuals, and not leech off of taxpayers dollars....and then flip-flopped and went ahead and took federal funding....i would be raising hell.

wilfull blindness to McCain's flip-floping is also not cool.

Re: Obama already breaking campaign promises

Isn't the whole point of the presidential public financial system to stop lobbyists from being to big of an influence on choosing who is president? So far, lobbyists have not had any influence on Obama's campaign, so really although he has rejected the money (and thus flip-flopped), he has still not flip-flopped on the core ideal of the PPFS.

Seems all a bit trivial and irrelevant to the actual job as a president to me, and sounds like people grasping for straws trying to find some bad thing to stick to Obama's Image. Next attempt please!

D.

Re: Obama already breaking campaign promises

honestly, i am afraid of howmuch money he is raising. he will be owing some corporations some serious slack. i mean, he is raising funds faster than bush did and bush had the real industry behind him

Re: Obama already breaking campaign promises

[QUOTE=thesightless;612550]honestly, i am afraid of howmuch money he is raising. he will be owing some corporations some serious slack. i mean, he is raising funds faster than bush did and bush had the real industry behind him[/QUOTE]

How do you figure? He's not taking PAC money or lobbyist money, and the bulk of his contributions have been small contributions, not the $2300 checks.

McCain's list of big donors:

[QUOTE]Merrill Lynch $230,310 Citigroup Inc $219,551 Blank Rome LLP $189,226 Greenberg Traurig LLP $157,487 AT&T Inc $153,005 Goldman Sachs $139,520 Morgan Stanley $136,651 JPMorgan Chase & Co $129,400 Credit Suisse Group $110,725 Lehman Brothers $96,050 UBS AG $93,815 US Government $91,551 Bank of New York Mellon $87,500 IDT Corp $83,150 Blackstone Group $82,600 Bear Stearns $79,900 Wachovia Corp $76,725 MGM Mirage $76,050 Univision Communications $75,700 PricewaterhouseCoopers $71,050[/QUOTE]

Obama's

[QUOTE]Goldman Sachs $571,330 University of California $437,236 UBS AG $364,806 JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207 Citigroup Inc $358,054 National Amusements Inc $320,750 Lehman Brothers $318,647 Google Inc $309,514 Harvard University $309,025 Sidley Austin LLP $294,245 Skadden, Arps et al $270,013 Time Warner $262,677 Morgan Stanley $259,876 Jones Day $250,725 Exelon Corp $236,211 University of Chicago $218,857 Wilmerhale LLP $218,680 Latham & Watkins $218,615 Microsoft Corp $209,242 Stanford University $195,262[/QUOTE]

McCain's donor profile is much more corporate than Obama's. Look at [url]www.opensecrets.org[/url], and then come on back and make your point, because I'm just not seeing it at all.

Re: Obama already breaking campaign promises

[quote=toasty;612571]How do you figure? He's not taking PAC money or lobbyist money, and the bulk of his contributions have been small contributions, not the $2300 checks.

McCain's list of big donors:

Obama's

[B] McCain's donor profile is much more corporate than Obama's.[/B] Look at [URL="http://www.opensecrets.org"]www.opensecrets.org[/URL], and then come on back and make your point, because I'm just not seeing it at all.[/quote]

why because he has 2 universities? rofl... from your list it seems that obama is much more indebted to the corporations because of their higher amounts...

Re: Obama already breaking campaign promises

[QUOTE=shosh;612585]why because he has 2 universities? rofl... from your list it seems that obama is much more indebted to the corporations because of their higher amounts...[/QUOTE]

rofl at yourself dude. did you not understand this- [I]He's not taking PAC money or lobbyist money[/I]

The DNC is actually pissed at Obama for not taking the money-

[quote]Dems can't afford donation ban By RYAN GRIM & VICTORIA MCGRANE | 6/10/08 4:55 AM EST

One Democratic lobbyist says Obama’s ban effectively tars everyone who can’t live up to it.

Sen. Barack Obama’s ban on contributions from lobbyists and PACs has irritated Democratic lobbyists and fundraisers, who say that Democratic congressional candidates can’t — and won’t — turn their backs on such a steady stream of campaign cash.

“Quite honestly, we’re taking what we can get,” said a top aide to a House Democratic candidate facing a competitive race in November. “The amount of money needed for a campaign today is just so huge that you really have to look under every rock.”

At a campaign appearance in Virginia last week, Obama said that lobbyists don’t fund his campaign and “will not fund our party,” either. The Democratic National Committee will play by Obama’s rule, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said last week that they would continue to accept contributions from lobbyists and PACs; spokesmen for the committees said new ethics rules already provide plenty of transparency.

Although some lawmakers adopt their own giving rules, including bans on lobbyist and corporate PAC giving, Democrats in Congress haven’t exactly rushed to embrace Obama’s rule.

It’s a pragmatic decision. Congressional campaigns — both Democratic and Republican — generally rely much more on PAC and lobbyist money than presidential campaigns do.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democratic House candidates have received more than $103 million from PACs this election cycle.

Sheila Krumholz, the center’s executive director, says House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) has received a higher percentage of his campaign contributions from PACs this cycle than has any other member of Congress.

Democratic Senate candidates have taken in about $20.5 million from PACs. By contrast, the 12 Democratic presidential candidates combined have raised just $2.5 million from PACs — a tiny share of the $547 million they’ve raised to date.

Democratic lobbyists complain that Obama’s ban has failed to account for the realities confronting candidates who lack the fundraising appeal of an electrifying presidential candidate.

“I’m curious how much [the Obama campaign] thought about this decision,” said one Democratic lobbyist. “I take Obama at his word that he’s serious about changing the culture of Washington. But he’s also got to realize that right now, he’s the Babe Ruth of politics. You’ve got a lot of other people out there who are AAA ballplayers; they don’t have the ability to do what he’s doing in terms of raising money and wowing crowds.”

Another Democratic lobbyist said Obama’s ban effectively tars everyone who can’t live up to it. “Now you’re implying that the House and Senate Democrats — and Republicans — are scumbags that take lobbyist money,” the lobbyist fumed.

Republicans wasted no time in highlighting the disconnect between the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee and the congressional campaign committees.

“They plead for donations on K Street with a tin cup in their hands and then have the audacity to self-righteously proclaim themselves agents of ‘change’ and cheer Obama on as he bashes lobbyists in Washington on the campaign trail,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

But the GOP won’t go as far as to directly challenge congressional Democrats to give up the money. That’s because the Republicans need the PAC and lobbyist checks just as much as the Democrats do. House Republicans have raised $66 million from PACs so far this cycle; Senate Republicans have collected close to $27 million from PACs.

Unless Republicans are willing to walk away from that money themselves, Democrats say GOP candidates will have a hard time making hay out of anyone else’s failure to live up to the Obama model.

Add it all up, and seasoned fundraisers say they don’t expect to see congressional candidates from either party embracing Obama-style bans anytime soon. Indeed, by prohibiting PAC and lobbyist contributions from flowing into his campaign or the DNC, Obama’s decree could actually increase PAC and lobbyist giving to the congressional committees and individual campaigns.

Giving up that money would “be a one-day positive news story and that’s it,” said a former Democratic Party fundraiser. “So you’d get one little bump out of it [and] nobody would remember in November.”

But even if Obama’s ban doesn’t have an impact on the overall money game, many Washington insiders view the condemnations of their professions by the campaigns of both Obama and Sen. John McCain as overly simplistic and counterproductive.

“There’s nothing wrong with lobbyist and PAC money, because the government can’t be bought,” said Nicholas Allard, co-chairman of the public policy department at lobbying firm Patton Boggs and a veteran of many Democratic campaigns, including former Vice President Al Gore’s 2000 White House bid.

Allard said lobbyists volunteer their time and make political contributions because they love the thrill of politics, want to support their party and even hope to secure a position within an administration or congressional staff — not to win influence for clients.

While he regrets some of the implications of Obama’s and McCain’s positions on lobbyists, Allard sees a very positive sign in Obama’s fundraising prowess and the confidence with which he can ban contributions from federal lobbyists and PACs.

Not only has Obama shown he can use the Internet to raise more money, at a faster pace, from more people — most of whom live outside the Beltway — he’s also used the Web to connect with voters, reducing at least some of the need for spending on expensive television ads — the part of modern campaigns largely responsible for the escalating cost, Allard said.

If that trend extends down to congressional races — and Allard thinks it will — the appearance and reality of fat cat donors and industry bundlers trading cash for favors will lessen on its own.

“It’s incredible how Sen. Obama has democratized the fundraising process,” Allard said. “You’re going to look back at this election like the Kennedy-Nixon debate,” which historians say marked the advent of television’s campaign dominance, “as the benchmark of a new media taking over.”[/quote]

the guy gets the majority of his donations from students, kids, middle class people, aka real people, to the tune of $75-$150 a pop.

Add up that corporate list and tell me it adds up to the astronomical amount he's raised.

sean, dude, is it the yankees? they'll win again man, no need to go all out on a limb on us.