Publically Financed Campaigns...

D

Danzig

New member
Senator Barack Obama has been taking a lot of heat over the last few days because he has backed out of a deal that he made with Senator McCain that both of their campaigns would be financed with public funds.

All the while I have sitting back incredulous that people are actually deriding him for not using our taxes to fund his campaign, instead choosing to finance it privately.

Of course, being a Libertarian, I am extremely biased against the idea of using tax money to finance political campaigns. Whenever it's been available, Libertarian candidates reject the use of public monies to finance their campaigns.

But to hear people who are actually upset about this completely blows my mind!
 
This response by Brit Hume is stunning, to say the least.

Brit Hume praises Obama opt-out of public funds
By Andrew McLemore | Uncategorized | Sunday, 22 June 2008

Senator Barack Obama’s decision to not take public funds for his campaign was the right one, Brit Hume said on FOX News Sunday.

The Senator’s refusal of $84 million in taxpayer funds came as a disappointment to many who felt he had made an about face from earlier positions on campaign finance reform.

But Hume had a more pragmatic opinion of Obama’s decision.

“It’s a flip-flop. It’s worth it. And I say by and large good for him for a couple of reasons. One is that Obama really has proved that the limits necessary, because of public financing, if you take it, do not merely screen out the evil influence of all the rich people in America, but they also make it impossible for a great many individual donors to make their voices heard through their contributions.”

Most voters will not care enough about the Senator’s reversal for it to significantly affect his candidacy, according to an article by Politico. [more in link above]
Click to expand...

I'd just as soon like to not see taxpayer money used to pay for candidates, but I'd also prefer to see both sides spending roughly equal amounts of money. Let the election be decided by the content, not the number of ads. (and yes, toss 527's out the window, too. Let the opposition say what needs to be said in the way they want to say it)
 
I can't abide by government enforced "fairness" because there is nothing fair about it.

If Senator Barack Obama can raise 100 million dollars and Senator John McCain can raise only 10 million dollars..guess what? The people have spoken very loudly that they prefer Obama to McCain.

But, money has proven to have little to do with how well a person's campaign will do. If money meant a whole lot then Congressman Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee right now. His fundraising far surpassed that of John McCain.
 
IS it government fund or is it

those $ 3 voluntary contributions they collect from tax returns? The $ 3 contributions are not taxes. The government is to hold those dollars as fiduciaries for the explicit use of presidential candidates. I have not seen any documentation that they public dollars in question are actually tax dollars.

Anyone who might know otherwise is asked to post a reference for the rest of us.
 
Anyone who might know otherwise is asked to post a reference for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

That little checkbox isn't an additional amount that you give the government (thus outside of taxes). It is an earmark.

Evident just prior to line 1 in the 1040ez where it says "Checking a box below will not change your tax or refund."
 
So, does this now mean Oprah can give Obama all the money she wants??

(yes, I am serious).
Click to expand...

Up to and including personal contribution limits. No more. There is still a cap on how much a single person can give. It does mean that there is no cap on how much obama can raise from many many people giving though.
 
If Senator Barack Obama can raise 100 million dollars and Senator John McCain can raise only 10 million dollars..guess what? The people have spoken very loudly that they prefer Obama to McCain.
Click to expand...

No that is not the case at all most people who vote i am more than likely to bet do not contribute to the candidates fund.

Not only that some states have a populace that has more money and is biased to one side.

Its like having a someone contribute to Obama and one to Mcain exept the one for Obama is Oprah and the one for Mcain is a joe farmer.

Oprah can give $300K and the farmer can give $300 its still a 1=1 support though Obama would be ahead.


In my opinion your statement is wrong and there is no fairness in its reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Nope..as SecDef stated, Both Oprah and the farmer both are allowed to donate up to a certain amount ($2000 I believe). And don't tell me that great candidate could not gather support from so called red and blue states alike. And once again, money isn't everything.
 
If Senator Barack Obama can raise 100 million dollars and Senator John McCain can raise only 10 million dollars..guess what? The people have spoken very loudly that they prefer Obama to McCain.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is why money equates to speech. I am for no limit on individual or corporate contributions, with one caveat full and instant disclosure.

Then we would be able to see exactly who gives to whom and how much and contrary to what many believe having a single donor such as Oprah or George Soros or Exxon/Mobile giving large donations instead of being beneficial could end up being perceived as a negative by the public at large.

Irregardless all of us singly or in groups could voice our opinions with our pocketbooks.
 
But to hear people who are actually upset about this completely blows my mind!
Click to expand...

It shouldn't. There are actually some people who value honesty (as much as can be expected in a politician). This is one of many examples of Obama demonstrating that he has no problem saying one thing and doing the opposite.
 
The lying is a good reason to dislike him, even if he lied when he promised to do something stupid; If you'll lie about one thing, you'll lie about another. He's just demonstrated, again, that what he says he'll do is no guide to his behavior.
 
Obama has proven that he has absolutely no integrity at all.
He has proven that his word means NOTHING.
Spin it however you like but the FACTS speak for themselves.:barf:
 
I for one would like to see public financing of national campaigns abolished altogether. In theory it's supposed to help have open access to the process for people of all incomes, but I can't ever remember a candidate for any national public office running who ever needed monetary assistance for anything. It makes me wonder how in the world there are people of lower economic status who can possibly believe that Donkey candidates represent them--how the heck does someone represent "the poor" who themselves are not, except in that they guarantee those who vote for them will continue to be?
 
I for one would like to see public financing of national campaigns abolished altogether.
Click to expand...

A few years ago I would have disagreed, but with the Internet one can get their message out fairly cheaply to gain momentum. If you can't afford THAT then really you have no place running for President.
 
Is it just me, or is the memory of the media (and the McCain campaign, and a few posters here) just a bit short? For some reason, I remember reading quite a few stories containing "McCain" and "public financing" and possibly "withdraw" not that long ago...but quite some time before Obama decided to decline public financing.

Not that I care all that much one way or the other who accepts public financing and who doesn't. But it seems to me that there's nothing like a little hypocrisy to make rhetoric ring hollow. Not that you're hearing much of anybody call him on it, even on the more 'liberal' news networks.
 
It's statements like these that irk me so much.

Danzig said:
Of course, being a Libertarian, I am extremely biased against the idea of using tax money to finance political campaigns
Click to expand...

As in, "I only have this opinion because I've ascribed myself to a particular belief system, or '-ism,' if you will. Essentially, if this belief system believes in it, then I believe in it. Frankly, I can't form my own opinions. Furthermore, be aware that any position counter to this particular belief system is wrong."

Examples include, "Of course, being a Republican, I am extremely biased against the idea of voting for a Democrat."

Or, "Of course, being a 'Progressive American,' I am extremely biased against guns. Gee gosh, they're just so barbaric!"

Or, "Of course, being a Mexican, I am extremely biased towards tacos."

Then again, this thread really isn't about Barack Obama, it's about Ron Paul's replacement.

Danzig said:
Don't blame me, I'm voting Libertarian!
Click to expand...

No doubt every politician since the dawn of politicking has done the following:

1 person donating 1 million + 20,000 people donating a nickel each + clever accounting = "Our average donor gives about 50 bucks. That's not soft money. Honest! Who's George Soros again?"

No doubt Obama will do such.
 
Nothing of the like Applesanity. I object to public financing for two reasons. First off, tax is theft pure and simple. And everything it touches should be considered fruit of that poisonous tree. Second...I can't stand either McCain or Obama and so would object strenuously to my tax dollars being used to fund their campaigns even if I wasn't opposed to taxation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top