Letter to the Editor
Campaign financing
Published Monday, June 23, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!June 19, 2008
To the editor:
I am troubled by Sen. Barack Obama’s decision to reject public financing in favor of only private-interest campaign funding.
As I understand the situation, the senator can raise more funds privately if he doesn’t accept the public funds than he can if he does accept them. He believes the public financing system is in need of repair. It is to his campaign’s advantage to solicit private donations. Is his decision really good for the nation?
Wasn’t the purpose of setting up public financing for campaigns that the candidates would not be tied to donors with agendas demanding special privileges or positions from the executive branch, that the ordinary taxpayers who checked the $1 box on their tax return would get an opportunity to participate in funding elections?
Wasn’t the public system designed to diminish undesirable influence on the elected official?
As a whole, campaign funding needs reform. Its total from all campaigns reach figures that, if otherwise applied, could probably feed the hungry of the world for two years, provide safe water systems for areas without them, and maintain schools for children currently with little chance for education. Campaign funding, be it private or public, should be limited.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Good point
All of what the OP said might be true, but he also gave a promise to his voters early on that he wouldn't take the funds. It seems he's keeping his word. I'm not sure why it's an issue now, if it's been public knowledge since his campaign began.
Here's an excerp: "Obama and McCain both pledged last year that they would accept taxpayer money for the general election if his opponent would do the same. Obama began stepping away from that as the primaries got underway and he shattered fundraising records. In a Feb. 20 column in USA TODAY, Obama said he would keep his pledge only if McCain also agreed to limit spending by political parties and refuse fundraising help from outside groups."
Where can I find the promise that he gave his voters? Seems that ol' Obama is just another politician after all.
I had "hoped" for better "change"...
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/o...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/el...
He is in it to win, at any cost. He knows the short attention span of the American people will cause them to forget his broken financial promise by November 4th. He is showing he is not naive and can play political hardball, Chicago style. He wants a democratic sweep that hasn't been seen since the thirties and will stop at nothing. He certainly has the money for it. The end justifies the means...
That said, the Republicans deserve to get thrashed for the greed, incompetence, and stupidity demonstrated in the last two presidential terms.
Anybody that dares to criticize Obama for reneging on a signed pledge to forego contributions, and use public funding, is obviously mean spirited and a racist. It's really about the ends justifying the means, after all.
Sort of like the moveon.org ads. We all know that that big meanie McCain wants to send Baby Alex to war for 100 years.
I voted for Ron Paul.
hstkmtn - Democrats are NO better, and they are all politicians - "Chicago-style" or whatever style they happen to use, corruption and broken campaign promises is nauseating.
Glacierles - I LOVE that add! It's a good representation of what I see on the scary far-left. Obama, like his compatriots, operates from emotion rather than brain and that's how the constituency seems to react; feeling rather than thinking. And I'm pretty sure that if baby Alex WANTS to join our all VOLUNTEER army at 18, mom can't stop him. Unless she guilts him I suppose....
Lucky Alex.
We all know that people are still in that "I'm in love and he can do no wrong phase" but even with all that love sickness, saying he pledged not to take the public funding is still a stretch.
His true colors are beginning to show clear now. Stay tuned for more sightings.
Don't worry your guy in the other corner will be putting out some duesies!!! Did you see what he called his own wife? Did you read about his first wife? Wow, he is a winner I tell ya!! Man, you could'nt ask for a better match. Obama vs McCain...its going to be great!!
OH OH I forgot to mention...BOB BARR! WOOOOHOOO! AWESOME!!
McCain ain't my guy. He's only one, sad choice out of these two, sad choices.
Not as sad as you will be in Nov.
YMBC - Read closer. I didn't say I was sad. I said they were.
ok...how does this sound? You will be sad in Nov.
Sad in November maybe. Sad after two or three years of Carter II, definitely.
I don't like McCain either, and living in a reliably red state relieves me of any responsibility for the outcome if I don't vote for him because if he needed my vote to carry Georgia he's got bigger problems than li'l ol' me.
But Obama is a lightweight. He isn't just an empty suit, he WISHES he were an empty suit. He's a HOLOGRAM of an empty suit.
Realy? Obama is a lightweight? What does that make BUSH and BUSHCO?
FEATHERWEIGHT or SILKWEIGHT?
ZEROGRAVITY?
Fun stuff...empty suit! Good work! Love it!!
"Bush" and "Bushco" are soon to be in the past. Move on - to the latest lightweights. The next four years are going to be rough.
Really, ruffer than the last 7 1/2? Bush still is President is'nt he? Or was he really ever our President?
Yup, change is hard...it was hard to change over the last 7.5...going backwards and taking our country down the hole does that!
But let's put that in the past, that is going to be the Republican's mantra. Dont worry DVD, I'm sure you will do the same after 8 years of OBAMA!
Good luck with that...YouMustBConfused
YMBC - We have a different view of the last 7.5 years and I'm not as foolish as some to place the blame for whatever ills I see on the doorstep of a single man (oh, I'm sorry, "Bushco"). I'm not a Republican and I don't see a miracle in either of these men. However, I can't say that I'm surprised that you do.
Change for change's sake is stupid. Change doesn't scare me. What scares me is the same liberal BS from yesterday that OBAMA offers today.
Even though I see attempts at discussion with you to be pointless as you offer nothing but attempts at insults, I'll ask anyway. What miracle "change" does the miracle man have for the country? Is it just your shortsighted "get rid of anything Bush?" or do you actually have something of substance to offer?
I don't know about Obama but Bush has wrecked the American economy and misplayed his hand terribly. Any change is a step in the right direction. The really bad part is that it may take decades to recover no matter who we elect. Many people are still in denial about Bush's corruption and hypocrisy. Remember when he got in office the federal debt was almost eliminated. He reversed that before summer was out and before the attacks. He ravaged our country worse than the Saudis did on 9-11.
My vote goes for Ron Paul too
ill drink to that (whatever it is).
i see no differance in the two major political parties, i think we have moved well beyond those days. i am registered dem. but that means nothing anymore. no way i will cast a vote for the candidate my party has chosen, and i really cant vote for the candidate the "opposition" has running. i have followed every tidbit of campaign promises and neither of these two have addressed a single problem realistically.
this may be the first time i dont vote, not because i refuse to vote but because i will feel guity either way. anyone else think this way and have you got an answer?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.