Breaking promises and not even POTUS yet

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Breaking promises and not even POTUS yet
69
Wed, 10-29-2008 - 7:42am
Commentary: Obama breaks promise on campaign finance

Campbell Brown
CNN










Decrease fontDecrease font

Enlarge fontEnlarge font

Editor's note: Campbell Brown anchors CNN's "Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull" at 8 p.m. ET Mondays through Fridays. She delivered this commentary during the "Cutting through the Bull" segment of Tuesday night's broadcast.



Photobucket

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2006
Wed, 10-29-2008 - 12:33pm

I absolutely agree. It's your life, your health, your money do with it as you wish. That's


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
Wed, 10-29-2008 - 12:35pm
Hey, I figure it's $5 well-spent. I'm not trying to impress anyone, just trying to help counter the GOP's false accusations of Obama that are polluting the airwaves, my mailbox and the phone lines.

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2006
Wed, 10-29-2008 - 12:35pm
We'll wait....


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Wed, 10-29-2008 - 12:41pm

Well I am still mystified that anyone would give money to someone who asked all the "little guys" to send money to pay off Hillary Clinton's campaign debt.

But to each his own.

mccain image

Obama image
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-10-2007
Wed, 10-29-2008 - 12:52pm

Yeah, maybe it's healthier to eat at home and no one's saying that people need giant homes.


Isn't it scary though that some people think it's ok for the government to tell you how to spend your money? Or to limit how much money someone can have? It sends chills up my spine.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Wed, 10-29-2008 - 12:58pm

An inspiration for a new government program ... new kitchens for all? If it's healthier to eat at home than it must be the government's job to see that everyone has an up to date kitchen to prepare the healthier food. Why should only the rich get those islands in the middle?




Edited 10/29/2008 1:00 pm ET by postreply
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Wed, 10-29-2008 - 1:00pm

perhaps enough land for organic gardens?


and what happens to all owners and employess of the places that will close?

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-10-2007
Wed, 10-29-2008 - 1:02pm

Or maybe we can just do away with restaurants and lattes altogether!


oh wait...what will the "elite latte sipping liberals" do? (I jest, I jest. I love lattes).

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2008
Wed, 10-29-2008 - 1:13pm
Nah....what Brown is referring to is exactly what so many GoOPer pundits, frustrated at Obama's unprecedented ability to raise small-donor cash which leaves him far less beholden to the special interests who typically control career Washington politicians like John McCain, have already referenced repeatedly in this campaign. Here's what actually happened, according to PolitiFact:

• On Feb. 1, 2007, Obama requested an opinion of the Federal Election Commission on whether he could privately raise money for the general election but still reserve the right to use public financing if he returned what he had raised.

  • On March 1, 2007, by a vote of 5-0, the FEC approved an advisory opinion: “Senator Obama may solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election without losing his eligibility to receive public funding if he receives his party’s nomination for president, if he (1) deposits and maintains all private contributions designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, (3) refunds the private contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds.”


  • The same day, McCain’s campaign said he would commit to public financing. “Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same,” Terry Nelson, McCain’s campaign manager, told the New York Times.



  • And Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton responded by saying: “If Senator Obama is the nominee, he will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.


That last part's important, because it's the main basis upon which John McCain's campaign rests the (false) charge that Obama "promised to accept" public financing. Politifact continues:

The next key development in this saga is a questionnaire sent to all presidential candidates in the fall of 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. McCain didn’t respond, but Obama did, and his answer to the question of whether he would participate in public financing was clear:

“Yes. ... 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. ... The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Sen. John McCain 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.”


It would appear then, from public statements, that Obama and McCain both wanted a publicly funded general election.

In the midst of this developing dispute over the general election fundraising, McCain filed a letter with the Federal Election Commission on Feb. 6, 2008, about fundraising in the primary: “I ... am withdrawing from participation in the federal primary-election funding program.” McCain was one of the few candidates to seek public money during the primaries and as such, his spending is limited through the convention in September. His campaign apparently has nearly reached the limit already....


And finally (after a fair amount more), Politifact concludes (relevant passages given added emphasis):

Evaluating the truthfulness of McCain’s statement, “I committed to public financing; (Obama) committed to public financing,” it’s clear that McCain committed to public financing in March 2007, and reiterated that commitment in February 2008.

It’s also clear that Obama has committed to “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” And in answering the question "Will you participate in the presidential public financing system" on the Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire, Obama said, "Yes."

But every comment Obama makes is in the context of reaching an agreement with the Republican nominee. It is not a blanket commitment to public financing.


So, according to PolitiFact, Obama is NOT "breaking promises," as you (and John McCain) allege. The lack of a formal agreement between the candidates obviates Obama's adherence to the strict letter of using only the existing system of public financing. However, even beyond that, Obama's campaign is - arguably - actually still well within the spirit of the goal of public-financed campaigns. Since the real goal of both the existing system of public financing and the dreams and schemes of most public-financing die-hards who want to change or expand what already exists is simply to level the playing field and to reduce the toxic influence of large amounts of high-dollar contributions from wealthy interests with favors they want granted or at least listened to in Washington. Obama has built a grassroots volunteer and donor movement the like of which - literally - has never been seen in modern politics, here or anywhere else. And, because the average contribution to Obama's campaign is still well under $200, it's not at all incorrect to say that Obama has - quite independently of John McCain - achieved the first truly viable "publicly-funded" campaign, in the truest sense of the word: the people, the individuals who want him elected are the ones powering his campaign with such large (collective, not individual) sums of cash. Three million individual donors can tend to have that effect.




Konichiwa, Bitches!
McCain LOST???

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2008
Wed, 10-29-2008 - 1:17pm

"sense of entitlement that THE LEFT is so full of???"

You're kidding, right? Who just proposed a few weeks ago that we MUST immediately give the Treasury Secretary seven hundred billion dollars, without review, so he can give it to the banks who feel entitled to remain in business despite blowing it big-time?





Konichiwa, Bitches!
McCain LOST???

Pages