Cross Posted from Dailykos

I'm sure most of you are on Barack Obama's email list (yes, that includes you Scarlett Johansson). If you're not, you need to go to his website and sign up.

I have to admit, I just delete a lot of the emails I receive. But this time I'm glad I chose to open it. For those of you who haven't here it is in a nutshell.

I can't remember a time when the political landscape has been as bleak and littered by crackpot ideas than it is now. The two representatives of the duopoly that share power in this nation have consistently changed positions and both have endorsed the use of force (including first-strike nuclear attacks) on nations that are opposed to U.S. foreign policy. These positions would have been anathema to a presidential race just a few years ago, but now statements supporting pre-emptive nuclear strikes are talked about with hardly any eyebrows being raised, or indignation expressed.

This presidential race has become a "gotcha" fest of the lowest moral caliber. Instead of portraying themselves as morally worthy of holding the highest office in the land, the two major party candidates have consistently raised the bar of what is considered acceptable to Americans. Time and time again, ideas and policy statements that would have been unthinkable in the 20th century are now commonplace rhetoric on a planet that has seemingly forgotten the horrors of nuclear warfare, and now has become inured to scenes of death and destruction of civilian populations in the name of bringing "democracy and freedom" to the corpses that litter the streets and back alleys of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The American people are asked to accept pandering to the right by both candidates in the name of a "winning strategy" that will enable their candidate to win the election. Time and time again I hear the words "political expediency" when supporters of either candidate brings up the question of the use of force. We are consistently told that in order to win the presidency the candidates cannot seem to be soft on terrorism or soft on defense for that would show them as "spineless" and cost them dearly on Election Day. These types of arguments are given to the so-called liberal/progressives that make up a big part of the alternative media that is called "the blogosphere". The reality of the situation is that both Obama and McCain both seem to have veered sharply to the right of their previous positions when they weren't looking to win the White House.

Barack Obama's recent decisions to chuck public campaign financing and support the FISA capitulation bill angered many. And, his missteps highlight a core problem of why government works - or more correctly - doesn't work.

http://omnipotentpoobah.com/2008/06/25/t hrowing-the-candidate-out-with-the-bath- water/

[Republished from 2008Central.net]

Update [2008-6-19 13:20:54 by 2008 Central]: [NOTE: Since this diary was initially published, additional information regarding some of my questions have been answered. Although the accounts are disputed, there was at least one meeting between the Obama and McCain campaigns regarding this issue. Thus, until further research and verification can be done, please take considerations indicated below with this information in mind]

This morning, in an email to supporters, Barack Obama announced that he will be opting out of the public financing system for the general election (video).  The announcement has been widely expected for a few months now, so it wasn't very much of a surprise.

Obama explained his decision, saying:

It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

It's completely fair for a candidate to contend that the problems with campaign finance system are so significant that it would be better not to participate in it.  However, there's a bit more to this situation that raises some questions.

First, here's a review of the time line (emphasis added):

In February 2007, Obama asked the FEC if it would be possible for him to accept money for the general election without disqualifying him for opting into the public financing system later in the process if he were to return the money.  The FEC ruled that this would be acceptable.  Thereby allowing Obama to preserve the option of opting into the public financing system for the general election.

When Obama made the request to the FEC, Obama Campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, said:

"Senator Obama has long been a proponent of public financing of campaigns and we are asking the FEC to take a step that could preserve the public financing option for the party's nominees"

And, a lawyer for the Obama Campaign, added:

"Should both major party nominees elect to receive public funding, this would preserve the public financing system, now in danger of collapse."

The primary purpose for Obama's request to the FEC was to allow for both parties candidates to come to a truce for the general election, the NY Times summarizes:

But Mr. Obama, campaigning on pledges to clean up politics, argued in his filing with the commission that the public financing system had insulated candidates from a corrupting dependence on big donors. He asserted that the system could be preserved for the general election through bipartisan agreement if party nominees returned early contributions.

The plausibility of such an agreement is not clear. One nominee is likely to have a financial edge on the other at the outset of the campaign, and accepting public financing would mean relinquishing that edge.

Following the FEC's ruling on the matter on March 1, 2007, McCain accepted the Obama campaign's proposal to work out a bipartisan arrangement regarding public financing.  McCain's campaign manager at the time, Terry Nelson, said:

"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."

At the time, this was welcomed news for the Obama campaign and the public financing system.  Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, responded to McCain's acceptance by saying:

"We hope that each of the Republican candidates pledges to do the same."

Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would "aggressively pursue an agreement" with whoever was his opponent.

In September 2007, Obama responded "yes" to a survey question from Midwest Democracy Network that asked: "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?." In addition to his "yes" response, Obama stated:

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.

[THESE ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS INDICATED IN THE NOTE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DIARY] Yet, in today's announcement, Obama supported his decision on the basis that the public system was broken and thus not worth saving.  This certainly doesn't seem to comport with his previous statements on the subject.  And, it raises some questions:

   
• Nothing about the system has changed since February 2007, so why was the system worth saving then and not worth saving now?

   
• Did the Obama campaign at least try to pursue some type of fundraising agreement with the McCain campaign? If so, what was the nature of these discussions? (Both the McCain and Obama campaigns have been contacted regarding this question. I will follow up if/when they get back to me).

That said, the reality is simple: it is politically smart for Obama to remain outside of public financing.  First, he has an enormous fundraising potential and to self handicap would be silly.  Second, as noted, the attacks from independent groups are likely to get especially nasty, so it would be a huge political risk to limit his campaign's ability to directly respond.  As already noted, these are completely fair reasons for not opting into the system.

My issue isn't with Obama refusing to take public funds.  Rather, my issue is with Obama spending most of 2007 arguing in favor of the public financing system and promising to support it should he become the party's nominee, only to disregard those previous statements when he actually became the party's nominee.

Further, I think it is a political miscalculation for the campaign to assume that people will not care about Obama's changed position on the issue.  Here's why: The Obama campaign is based largely on the promise of change, on doing things differently, on real and tangible results.  Yet, when given the opportunity to change things now (like the public financing system or engaging the GOP nominee in several joint campaign events), the Obama campaign consistently comes up with excuses on why that change isn't proper at the moment.  Obviously, these kinds of moves are not going to hurt Obama with current supporters; however, it may hurt him with independents and Republicans that want to believe in him, but see these kinds of isuses (albeit small in the grand scheme of things) as signals that Obama may not deliver on the promises of his campaign.  This could very well be a problem for the Obama campaign and they should be ever mindful of it.

Now, if they tried to work out an agreement with the McCain campaign, but couldn't, then the circumstances are different.  If this is the case, they should make this point clear.  Although, my bet is on the fact that they didn't really "aggressively pursue an agreement."

With campaign slogans like "Change you can believe in" and statements about "the fierce urgency of now," it might behoove the campaign to do things differently every once in a while, so that skeptics (and supporters) have an opportunity to see change they can believe in.

There will be a lot to talk about with regards to this big and extremely important decision, but I first wanted to get it up as soon as possible: Barack Obama will not be participating in the public financing program during the general election.

This is important for a number of reasons:

• 50-state campaign: Because elections are expensive and not enough American taxpayers check the box to contribute to the public financing program, presidential campaigns tend to get waged in a dozen or fewer states. These swing states get the attention not only because they are competitive on a partisan sense but also because with $75 million or even $85 million to spend over two months, there just aren't enough resources to run all around the country. So as a result of this decision, Obama will be able to compete in significantly more states, seriously contesting not only the traditional swing states but also emerging ones like Virginia, North Carolina, Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Nebraska (or at least the eastern part of it for one to two electoral votes), Montana, and others -- states that the Republicans have been able to rely on in the past but will not be allowed to take for granted this year.

• Saying No to McCain's Shenanigans: John McCain opted into the public financing program during the primaries, received a material benefit (according to an FEC complaint filed by the Democratic National Committee), then unilaterally pulled out of the program without the agreement of the FEC when he thought it would suit him. By deciding not to opt into the public financing program in the general election, Obama is saying no to the type of cynical gamesmanship of campaign finance law that McCain has undertaken during this campaign.

• Calling McCain's Bluff: McCain was hoping to tie Obama's hands behind his back by forcing him to opt into the public financing program -- while McCain would still rely heavily on the RNC to finance his efforts. What's more, with the proliferation of 527 organizations willing to say anything and everything to tar Democrats, not the least of which Obama, had Obama opted into the program he would have been hampered in efforts to rightfully defend himself from smears. But Obama didn't fall for McCain's game -- he called the bluff, forcing McCain to show that his real priority in trying to force this election into the public financing program was not reform but rather ambition to be elected President.

Those are just my initial thoughts. What think you?

Read the whole script below the fold...

Conflict of interest, anyone?

John McCain's campaign asked a prominent Republican consultant, Craig Shirley, to leave his official campaign role Thursday after a Politico inquiry about Shirley's dual role consulting for the campaign and for an independent "527" group opposing the Democratic presidential candidates. The campaign also released a new conflict of interest policy barring such arrangements.

Shirley, a conservative public relations veteran, doubled as a consultant to McCain and to the group Stop Her Now, a 527 group barred from coordinating its activities with presidential campaigns. He is not currently on the McCain campaign's payroll, but would also step down from his role on McCain's Virginia Leadership Team, a McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said.

"If you're working for a 527 involved in the presidential race, you won't have a named role in our campaign," said Rogers.

I'm not quite sure what that means -- people can't have named roles in the McCain campaign and still work on 527 organizations trying to impact the outcome of the presidential race. Does that mean that the McCain campaign is alright having people working on such 527s secretly advising the campaign in non-named roles? Is there another meaning to such a statement that I'm missing? Either way, campaign finance experts aren't terribly impressed.

Campaign finance experts expressed surprise that a McCain consultant would moonlight for a 527, a dual role that could trigger inquiries from the Federal Elections Commission.

[...]

"When you involve the same people there's at least the risk that coordination will be found," said Rick Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in election law issues. "The question is why a campaign would want to run that risk -- especially a campaign like McCain's or Obama's that tries to put itself out there as supporting campaign finance reform and opposing 527s."

This type of attitude towards campaign finance from McCain -- not exactly following the spirit of law, playing games despite having previously spent so much time demagoguing on the issue in the past -- should come as little surprise to MyDD readers as it's something we've written about over and over and over again. And even if it seems that the establishment media haven't fully embraced and accepted this reality, believe me when I say that McCain's shenanigans are not being overlooked by a lot of voters who by November aren't necessarily going to see McCain as so righteous or so honest.

In yet another indication that the charges being leveled against John McCain -- that he doesn't practice what he preaches on campaign finance law, that he stretches the bounds of what's legal (perhaps even crossing the line at times) -- the right wing Judicial Watch (underscore right wing; it was founded during the Clinton administration and hounded the Democratic White House with 18 lawsuits) has filed an FEC complaint against McCain (h/t Wall Street Journal).

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a formal complaint, dated April 22, 2008, with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) related to a fundraising luncheon held at London's Spencer House to benefit Senator John McCain's presidential campaign.  The venue for the event was apparently donated to the campaign by foreign nationals, in violation of federal campaign finance laws.

"Recent news reports suggest that Sen. John McCain and John McCain for President may have accepted an in-kind contribution from foreign nationals Lord Rothschild OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild of Great Britain in contravention of federal election laws," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton wrote in a complaint letter dated April 22, 2008.  "On behalf of Judicial Watch and its supporters, I hereby request that the FEC investigate the matter."

The McCain fundraiser was held on March 20, 2008 at London's Spencer House, billed as "London's most magnificent 18th century private palace."  The McCain campaign distributed an invitation indicating that the site for the luncheon had been provided "by kind permission of Lord Rothschild, OM GBE and the Hon. Nathaniel Rothschild," who are both foreign nationals.  In statements to the press, the McCain campaign referred to the luncheon as a "fundraiser."

While it is, as yet, unclear how much money was raised during the luncheon, had the venue not been donated to the McCain campaign, the net profit from the event would have been significantly reduced.  The donation of the venue, therefore, represents an illegal in-kind campaign contribution.

According to 2 U.S.C. § 441e, Contributions and donations by foreign nationals, it is illegal for any foreign national to "make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value" to a Federal, State or Local election.

This is a bit of a "man-bites-dog" story, with a conservative organization coming out and hitting McCain on fundraising issues. As such, it stands out on it's own. But it is also part of a broader trend. This is not the first serious question about McCain's not-clearly-kosher campaign finance tactics -- there remains a pending FEC complaint over whether he is in violation of the public financing program, which he opted into and then attempted to unilaterally opt out of without the approval of the commission. It's not even the first serious question about this particular London fundraiser. As I noted last month, McCain flew to London on the taxpayer dime, didn't repay the federal government at first, and then when he finally did refused to pay as much as he owed it. The release from DNC general counsel Joe Sandler read at the time:

"The 2007 ethics reform law and the regulations implementing it require that when a candidate mixes campaign and official travel when using a government plane, the campaign travelers must reimburse the government for the full cost of an equivalent round trip charter flight.  Reasonable estimates place the cost of a one-way charter flight from Washington to London at between $20,000 and $56,000.  As a result, McCain's stated intention to reimburse the federal government $3,000 almost certainly falls far short of what the law requires."

With McCain apparently playing fast and loose with campaign finance statutes and regulations, it's going to be awfully difficult for the Senator to run on a reformist platform this fall, let alone have much credibility if attacking Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for not participating in the public finance system in the general election, if either choses not to opt in. (That is, of course, assuming that the establishment media folks inside the Beltway stop merely reporting what they think the story is with McCain and campaign finance, and actually start looking at the evidence of his questionable activities...)

Cross-posted for http://borell.dailykos.com/

I just had the strangest experience. A presidential candidate gave me back my donation, told me he would not accept it because of what I do for a living, and it left me more committeed to the candidate and conviced that he is the person that must be the next president.

I went to the mailbox and found a letter from the Obama Campaign. Enclosed was a check for $100, the return of my contribution from earlier this month along with a letter explaining why it would not be accepted.