"Election Principle Sacrificed For Political Profit"

In his 1907 State of the Union address, Theodore Roosevelt, dismayed that there were no laws to "hamper an unscrupulous man of unlimited means from buying his own way into office," proposed "a very radical measure" he hoped might make elections more fair and transparent.(To his great embarrassment, Roosevelt himself had been hit with accusations that he promised a French ambassadorship to a senator from New York in exchange for $200,000 in big business campaign donations.) "The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish if Congress provided ... an appropriation ample enough to meet the necessity for thorough organization and machinery, which requires a large expenditure of money," Roosevelt said, adding that candidates who took public funds should be required to limit donation amounts and publicly disclose their receipts. If that sounds familiar it's because Roosevelt's proposal is essentially the system we have today — although its adoption didn't come about for another 64 years.

In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, which required candidates to report expenses and contributions, and the Revenue Act, which set up a Presidential Election Campaign Fund, financed by an optional checkoff box on income tax returns that diverted $1 (since raised to $3) from the U.S. Treasury. Candidates were offered large lump sums to cover expenses related to the general election, so long as they agreed not to collect private donations or spend money raised for primary contests. As Watergate unfolded between 1972 and 1974, amid allegations (later substantiated) that Richard Nixon used large campaign contributions for illegal purposes, Congress amended the public finance laws to limit individual contributions and provide primary candidates with matching funds on small donations. The new legislation also set up the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

In every election since, candidates taking federal funds for the primary contest agreed to spend a limited amount — set by the FEC — during that stage of the campaign. But candidates must manage their money carefully: Bob Dole reached his spending limit in the 1996 race months before the party's summer convention, leaving him gasping in the final weeks of primaries and prompting George W. Bush to opt out of public primary funding altogether in the 2000 election. (Bush did take $67.6 million in general election public funds.) In 2004, John Kerry and Howard Dean also opted out of primary public funding, with Dean sending an e-mail to supporters asking for their blessing.

Now, however, public finance advocates fear that Democratic candidate Barack Obama's decision to change his position and forgo all public funding may signal an end to Roosevelt's apparatus for good. Obama, who would get about $84 million in public funds for the general election, stands to raise hundreds of millions more through private donations. The Illinois Senator contends he'll need that money to fend off attacks from tax-exempt advocacy organizations — known as 527 groups, after the section of the tax code under which they are formed — which, Obama said, will spend "millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations" to damage his reputation. (So far, a well-funded 527 movement against him has not materialized.) His Republican rival, John McCain, said Obama "has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people." McCain, has said he will accept the public funding available for the general campaign, although he is also the subject of a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee, alleging he violated election funding rules by using promised federal primary funds that he later turned down to secure a loan.

Campaign finance reform has been a career cause for the Arizona senator, highlighted by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which he championed with Democrat Russ Feingold. Although the act contained landmark transparency provisions, outside influence on elections is still pervasive, with 527 groups like the anti-John Kerry organization Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the liberal group MoveOn.org's Voter Fund playing major roles in the last presidential election. This year's election will be the most expensive in history — presidential candidates have already raised over $900 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And that's not counting the millions in the coffers of the parties, political action committees and advocacy groups that are just now gearing up their advertising campaigns. A century on, the laws have changed, but the reality hasn't. Running a national election campaign still costs serious amounts of money, and no candidate has ever won a national office on good ideas alone.

The campaign went even further in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. The questionnaire posed a very simple question to the candidates: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

You can read Obama's response here. The candidate highlighted the simple answer "Yes" and elaborated as follows: 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. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) 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."

     A record breaking obscene amount of money is going to be spent on the Presidential election this year between Barack Obama and John McCain. Though both candidates are trying to wear the mantle of campaign finance reform, both are "flip flopping" from their campaign promises and rhetoric, especially Senator Obama, who promised a different kind of politics. Both candidates will be using "527" attack ads against the other, which the Supreme Court has ruled constitutional. In my opinion, if Barack Obama was a principled politician, he would have used public campaign finances. By opting out of public financing, Obama has proven once again that he is just "politics as usual". In my opinion, something is innately wrong in an election system where the candidate who has the most money wins, whether the money comes from "the bottom" or "the top". America still is in desperate need of campaign finance reform and a viable third party, as I see it.

tags: campaign finance reform  barack obama  john mccain  2008  politics  takebackamerica  president  us  obama  mccain  theodore roosevelt  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit