Despite John McCain’s recent charges, it seems that his campaign retracted the offer to accept public financing. I doubt it comes as a surprise to anyone that he and his campaign managed to occupy both sides of the issue.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802170003
“-Mr. McCain’s advisers said that the candidate, despite his signature legislative efforts to restrict the money spent on political campaigns, would not accept public financing and spending limits for this year’s general campaign.” — originally from the N.Y.Times
What’s interesting about the McCain campaign’s position on the issue is the fact that public financing was viewed as an alternative of last resort, in case there were financial difficulties — hardly the principled stance that’s it’s being portrayed as now.
It’s also interesting that Obama’s offer fell short of acceptance. He promised to “aggressively pursue” the public financing route.
The McCain-Obama Pledge that was not but Hillary aids McCain in demanding Obama keep his word.
Mark Schmitt at The American Prospect, cutting to the chase, asks:
Would You Make a “Pledge” With This Man?
and with all that said, here’s McCain calling on Obama to avoid big money while asking Bush to do fund-raising but please keep him far from me:
Oh my,… where is the photo of that famous hug?
.
« click to enlarge
John McCain's Bear Hug"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Thanks Oui.
ya think that photo will be the No.1 poster in the GE campaign? Count on it.
…but please keep him far from me:…that only applies to the chimperor.
he’s more than happy to embrace 41:
and it was just a few days ago the charlie black, a mccain advisor, claimed president bush is ‘a political asset’
yes, yes. endorsed by the man who said “read my lips.” Is this why?
`McCain pledges ‘no new taxes’
Hey, we’ve been warned: “under no circumstances”
mccains being set up for a replay of the ’92 campaign: it’s the economy, stupid!
couldn’t happen to a more deserving fellow.
Great find, idredit.
Considering how soft money has affected our electoral process, it would be foolish to commit to system in which front groups would have free reign while the campaign itself would be highly constrained. McCain-Feingold doesn’t prevent 527s from politicking, except for the nominal prohibition against working for or against candidates, and it’s hardly trivial that the currently inoperative FEC can’t enforce violations anyways.
(note: last I heard the vacant FEC positions hadn’t been filled, in the nomination fight between Bush and the Senate, which would keep the FEC from meeting)
The best we can hope for seems to be if Obama takes McCain up on his equivocal offer to move to a new type of public financing for elections, one which ameliorates some of the current problems. Since Huckabee has made eliminating McCain-Feingold a major demand, it’s hard to see this happening. And, of course, the SCOTUS has adopted the specious position that buying elections is free speech, so it might take a constitutional amendment — an unlikely event.
it sure looks that way:
more from mark schmitt at tapped/american prospect:
he’s got a lot of gall, as does clinton, to be casting aspersions at obama with his campaign pulling this kind of crap.
what is it drives to these people?
the complete lack of accountability, credibility, ethics or morals just astounds me.
Ezra Klein weighs in:
This article shows that the public financing system is hopelessly out of date and riddled with loopholes.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8319.html
Obama’s editorial on public financing. Gee, he took my advice, what a bright guy!
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html
I will seek a good faith pact that results in real spending limits.
By Barack Obama
In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties’ eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party’s nominee.
I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.
As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.
I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.
In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.
We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.
I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is seeking his party’s presidential nomination.