Politics: Obama Fundraising Decision

Weeks ago, back when it was news, Brother Beorn sent me this e-pistle:

We don't get to see much about the election on the Globe. I wonder if you can shed any light on this announcement about Obama's fundraising that's getting so much hype. What I've been able to gather so far is that a public campaign financing system was set up as a response to Watergate and that it was supposed to be designed to control funding by lobbyists and special interest groups. Apparently it exists as an option. You can either use public money and that's all you can spend or you can refuse the public money and you're on your own with no limit except what you're capable of raising. I also gather that since its inception no major candidate in a general election has opted not to use it. Taken alone, it seems like it would be a very fair system. On the other hand, it looks like there is a back door, which I don't entirely understand, that puts the Republican Party at an advantage in this system. I guess the Party itself can go ahead and raise money to support the campaign rather than having the candidate raise it. Is all of this right so far? Are there restrictions on how the party can fundraise? Do the lobbyists and special interest groups just buy the party instead of the candidate?What makes for the advantage in the Republican Party under that system? Is it just that the wealthiest special interest groups are controlling the GOP?

Now, what about this reversal of Obama? Apparently he said last year that he would use the public funding system in the general election. Now he's saying it's a broken system. Presumably the system hasn't changed since last year. What has changed is that it's real clear that he can raise more money on his own than is available in the public system and more than McCain can raise either way. Wasn't Obama's statement last year supposed to be a moral high-road decision in support of the public financing system, implying that it was a good thing?

I'm planning on voting for Obama. I'm even thinking about giving him my own $10. I would like to understand this issue better. I'd like to assume that he's intelligent and has some integrity. The media often confuses things by oversimplifying but to me, this is what it looks like:Last year it looked good to say that he would support the public finance system because it's reform oriented. Now the money looks too good (not to mention the impressive feat of raising that much money in small donations) to pass it up and so he's putting the best political spin on it that he can manage by saying that the public system is unfair the way the Republicans use it. Did he not know last year that it would be the Republicans he'd be running against in a general election?What are your thoughts? What am I missing? What light do you have to bestow?

Let me preface my response by saying that, according to everything I've read, you've pretty much got it right, minus a couple of details. First, if you accept public financing, you don't have to stick to the $84 million of public money, but you do have to abide by other limitations (such as a nearly $30,000 limit on donations to party committees). As far as the loopholes go, yes, for one thing the political parties can finance their candidates lavishly. There's also an ability to gather unlimited money in "527s," which have nonprofit status and are not part of the party structure (Remember those delightful Swift Boat Veterans For "Truth?" 527). In terms of the advantages enjoyed by Republicans under the public system, as it happens this year, although Obama has outraised McCain by far, the RNC itself has an extremely deep war chest compared to that of the Democrats. And they're also just much more adept at exploiting this system. Which is not at all to say that Democrats aren't swayed by special interests or willing to game the system -- they're just not as good at it.

So what about the decision and its implications? I guess I'd make four points:

1. It means Obama will stand a chance of winning. Financially, he will keep the upper hand now, and ought to be able to campaign in places where he might not have been able to otherwise.

2. In the end, by refusing public financing and relying on the contributions of political donors, Obama is, to a great degree, accomplishing what the public system with its loopholes has failed to accomplish: giving access to ordinary people like you and me. Nearly half of his contributions have been for $200 or less, not from lobbyists invited to $1,000-a-plate dinners.

3. It's dissapointing that he would break his word. I have no problem with his opting for private funding, but as you say, why did he state that he'd do otherwise a few months ago? It suggests that back then he was either being disingenuous or short-sighted, neither of which does much for his image. If you want to spin it or look for the silver lining, you could point out that he is, in the end, doing the smart thing by taking the hit that comes with breaking your word (and taking it now, strategically), and that at least he isn't recalcitrant enough to stick to a failing plan just because he espoused it a few months ago. For this view, you can also see him recalibrating slightly on Iraq withdrawal as the situation changes there.

4. Get used to this kind of thing (And yes, I'm saying that to myself as much as to anyone else). Obama would not be where he is right now were he not a shrewd politician. Remember the elation and then letdown of the early Clinton years, as the liberal wing of the party saw compromise after compromise? I think that if Obama becomes president, we'll experience even more of that than we did under Clinton. Clinton turned out to be very much a centrist, of course, but remember that one of the core themes of Obama's message is national -- and party -- reconciliation. By all indications he's sincere about that, and most of us know that the real meaning of bipartisanship is a slide rightward. So now is as good a time as any to start pulling off the rose-colored lenses and get used to the fact that our candidate is a politician, not a saint.