In the unlikely event the election turns into a landslide, this would be the key reason. I know Obama changed his stance on this, but with such a huge advantage at stake, he obviously couldn't turn it down. I don't blame him on this one. He could carpet bomb every key state to the point that over-saturation might be his main concern. If his first ad is any indication, these televised spots by Obama could be devastating to McCain's chances. It does bother me that a huge money advantage may be a deciding point in the election. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5207140&page=1 Obama Poised for Huge Cash Edge Democrats Could Swamp McCain With $500 Million in Final Two Months By RICK KLEIN June 19, 2008 — Sen. Barack Obama's decision to forgo public financing for his presidential campaign clears the way for him to outspend Sen. John McCain by 3-to-1 or substantially more in the general election, a financial edge that dramatically rewrites the playbooks for both candidates. With the possibility of spending perhaps $500 million just in the final two months of the campaign, Obama will be the first major-party candidate to enjoy a spending edge in the general election in more than 30 years. The comparison with the consistently cash-strapped McCain campaign could hardly be more stark. "It'll be like George Steinbrenner's Yankees in the '90s an All-Star at every position against the '90s Kansas City Royals, barely able to meet their payroll," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant who worked for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. Though Obama risks a short-term political backlash by seeming to go back on his word, Democratic and Republican strategists say most campaigns would take such a hit in exchange for the unprecedented cash advantage he'll derive. McCain said Thursday he will accept public financing, meaning he'll be limited to spending only $84.1 million in the critical window between the Republican National Convention and Election Day. He'll be forced to lean more heavily on the Republican National Committee and outside groups that he cannot legally coordinate spending decisions with. In that same time period, Obama will continue to be free to raise and spend unlimited amounts with advertising specialists and party insiders projecting that he will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars, utilizing and expanding on the most efficient fundraising operation in American political history. "He's going to be able to raise almost unimaginable amount of money," said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist who was a top adviser in the Gore and Kerry campaigns. "This is an incredible advantage for him and his campaign. He'll be able to dictate the terms of this election." "This is bigger than Obama being ahead in the polls," Devine continued. "This means he can be the aggressor." Some party strategists say Obama could use his immense cash advantage to run a national ad campaign akin to marketing drives run by companies like McDonald's and Nike, while simultaneously engaging in targeted, state-level organizing that could leave McCain on the defensive in states that have rarely been competitive in years past. On Thursday, Obama released his first ad since wrapping up the Democratic nomination, and it hints at the potential scope of ad buys to come. His message will run in 18 states, including perennial Republican strongholds Alaska, Montana, North Carolina, and North Dakota, as well as classic swing states Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. "If the ad buy looks like this in October, this election's over," said Ken Goldstein, director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "He's competing in red states, and he doesn't even feel he needs to advertise in blue states." Obama's decision could also hasten the end of the post-Watergate campaign-financing system that has leveled presidential playing fields for more than three decades. Both major-party candidates have opted into the public campaign-finance system since it was put into place in time for the 1976 elections. The system which relies on money from taxpayer check-offs selected by fewer than 10 percent of tax filers has been widely criticized in recent years, and both McCain and Obama have expressed interest in making revisions. "When at least one candidate isn't taking money at all, and 90 percent of taxpayers aren't paying into the system, you know something's wrong with the system," said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political spending. Bob Bauer, the Obama campaign's general counsel, told reporters in Washington Thursday that Obama would push to update the system in time for the 2012 elections. "That architecture has to be revamped," Bauer said. "There are & measures to do just that for both the primary and the general that I think will restore its viability as a vehicle make it attractive and bring candidates back to public funding beginning in the 2012 presidential election." Obama has already shattered monthly campaign fund-raising records, and is on pace to obliterate all previous markers. He has raised more than $250 million just through the end of April for his primary campaign. With nearly half of his money coming from donors who've given less than $200, he can tap most of his 1.5 million donors repeatedly before they reach the maximum of $2,300 each. That's not even counting the pool of Hillary Clinton donors available to him now that she has left the race. Obama's spending could reach a saturation point: Even corporate giants know there's such a thing as too much messaging to throw at consumers. Both candidates will get wide press coverage throughout the campaign, and such "free media" can be just as important in an election's outcome. The McCain campaign is hoping Obama's decision will tarnish his image as a reformer. Obama committed publicly to pursuing an agreement with McCain that would involve both of them taking public dollars, only to abandon it less than two weeks after he became the presumptive Democratic nominee, with Clinton's exit. "This election is about a lot of things but it's also about trust. It's also about whether you can take people's word," McCain said Thursday in Iowa. The candidates' spending doesn't tell the whole story, since other organizations chip in. Republicans will be able to compete financially through the auspices of the RNC which has done a far better job raising money than its Democratic counterpart and outside groups, which played a major role in 2004 and are already spending this year. But, Goldstein said, a critical difference will be that the Obama campaign will have full control of its resources, while the McCain campaign will have to lean on outside groups with which it cannot, by law, discuss strategy or messaging. "It not only gives him tons of money, more importantly, it gives him tons of control," Goldstein said. "Obama can freeze the race. It can put so much money up there that it spends McCain into oblivion." Devine said that Kerry's decision to accept public funds in 2004 was "one of the biggest mistakes we made" in the campaign. Kerry had to make his money last five weeks longer than President Bush did, because of the timing of the two conventions, and Kerry was not advertising on television at all when the Swift boat attacks began in August. With Obama already up in the polls and the likelihood of a big Election Day for Democrats nationwide the financial edge could be the last piece Obama needs, Lehane said. "The resource advantage on top of the current trends is a potential game-changer," he said. "This is a completely different paradigm from the way presidential campaigns have been run over the last 20 or 25 years." ABC's David Chalian and Bret Hovell contributed to this report.
The most amazing thing about this is that Democrats have the money advantage. How in the hell did that happen?
I'm so glad he did it! I would have been upset had he not. It is controversial, however. Obama is the first candidate since public funding of Prez elections started not to take that funding, isn't he? I completely agree with his argument, however. The public funding mechanism has holes in it a truck could drive through. The GOP has been using those holes to outspend Dems, seemingly forever. But the worm has turned! This time around, the Democrats are going to have a big money advantage. As a Democrat, I'm pleased as punch. Trim Bush.
Small donations via the internet. One could argue that's a good thing because this money isn't coming in huge chunks from wealthy individuals who want something specifically in return for their money.
That's the clincher right there. Perhaps McCain will show his mettle as a judicious campaign spender, and launch a similar asymmetric campaign Hillary ran based on code words and themes. This is getting interesting...
campaign money is largely irrelevant in the face of 527s and national party groups. the battle of ads will be fought between moveon and swift boat veterans for lapel pins
and from the other side of the pillow... i don't agree on the criticism but just throwing it out there. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money_analysis Analysis: Obama chose winning over his word By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Thu Jun 19, 4:39 PM ET WASHINGTON - Barack Obama chose winning over his word. ADVERTISEMENT The Democrat once made a conditional agreement to accept taxpayer money from the public financing system, and accompanying spending limits, if his Republican opponent did, too. No more. The chance to financially swamp John McCain — and maneuver for an enormous general election advantage — proved too great an allure. Obama, a record-shattering fundraiser, reversed course Thursday and decided to forgo some $85 million so he could raise unlimited amounts of money and spend as much as he wants. "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said in announcing that despite his previous commitment, he would rely only on private donations because "the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken." And with that, the first-term Illinois senator tarnished his carefully honed image as a different kind of politician — one who means what he says and says what he means — while undercutting his call for "a new kind of politics." McCain, for his part, painted the issue as a character test, saying: "This election is about a lot of things. It's also about trust. It's about keeping your word." Not that the Arizona senator has much room to talk. He, too, has cast himself as a reformer who tells it like it is but his words and actions sometimes conflict with that identity. Overall, the race between Obama and McCain amounts to an authenticity contest. Voters are craving change from typical Washington ways and each candidate is claiming he offers a new brand of politics that transcends poisonous partisanship. Yet, each candidate, in what he says versus what he does, also is undermining his own promises not to become the politics of usual. McCain, for instance, opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Now, as a White House hopeful in 2008, he supports them; he says doing otherwise would amount to a tax increase. He also long advocated an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Then, while in the GOP primary, he emphasized securing the borders first; he says he listened to the public outcry and a defeated Senate bill. The Republican also rails against special interests, yet he has faced criticism for having former lobbyists at his campaign's helm. And, just this week, McCain assailed Obama for proposing a windfall profits tax on oil, despite saying last month he would consider the same proposal. "McCain's a four-star flip-flopper," said Chris Kofinis, a Democratic operative who worked for John Edwards in the primary. "The John McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the John McCain of 2008." True or not, Republicans were quick to pound Obama over his money announcement. "'Change We Can Believe In' has been thrown overboard for 'Political Expediency I Can Win With,'" said Todd Harris, a Republican analyst and aide to former presidential candidate Fred Thompson in the primary. "Every time Obama's change rhetoric meets his actual change record it evaporates in a cloud of hypocrisy." Last year, as Obama competed against fundraising behemoth Hillary Rodham Clinton and before his fundraising prowess was evident, Obama proposed that both major party general election nominees agree to stay in the public financing system. In a November 2007 questionnaire, Obama answered "yes" when 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?" He added: "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." Then, Obama raised enormous sums — and he started backing away from that position. McCain, however, had indicated he would go along with the proposal and, since clinching the GOP nomination, has been trying to hold Obama to his commitment. Obama "said he would stick to his word. He didn't," McCain complained Thursday, and then told reporters in Minnesota, "We will take public financing." Obama made his announcement as McCain was in the Democrat's hometown of Chicago — where McCain had come to raise money. Obama's decision also came one day before the candidates were required to report their May fundraising totals. The move could be the death-knell for the post-Watergate federal financing system designed to lessen the large donors' influence and reduce corruption. It certainly will give Obama an extraordinary advantage over McCain and Republicans who have struggled to match Democratic fundraising this election cycle. Within hours, Obama showed his financial might by rolling out a 60-second television ad in 18 states, including several that have been reliable GOP strongholds. Obama made the money announcement in a video message to supporters — and sought to empower them to give more. "You've fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford," Obama said in an appeal seeking donations from $25 to $2,300 and beyond. "Let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people," Obama said — ignoring the fact that the system he's opting out of is paid for by taxpayers who donate $3 to the fund when they file their tax returns. Obama blamed his decision in part on McCain and "the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups." But he failed to mention that the only outside groups running ads in earnest so far are those aligned with Obama — and running commercials against McCain. So much for being a straight shooter.
Could he really gather $500 million for the election, or does that estimate include what he collected during the primaries? Half a billion dollars is just a staggering sum. Heck, $300 million is! He'll be getting money from my wife and I. Time to dominate! Impeach Bush.
The Newshour rocks... "JEFFREY BROWN: Obama has raised $265 million to date, from more than 1.5 million donors, mostly through an unprecedented Internet fundraising apparatus. Of that money, just $10 million is earmarked for the general election." - "He can roll over anything left from the primary into his general campaign and can now start raising general election money in earnest, so he could raise $200 million, $300 million, maybe more, against McCain's limit of $84 million. So this is a money play, when you get right down to it. That is a tremendous advantage. There is some disadvantage that McCain is trying to exploit, this issue as to whether he went back on a pledge to be publicly funded, and just whether this is consistent with the position that he's taken as a campaign finance reform person himself. JEFFREY BROWN: And just to remind people of how the system works, people will still only be able to contribute a set amount to Obama, right? KEN GROSS: That's right. While there's no limit on how much money he can spend, he still has to raise it in relatively small increments. The limit is no more than $2,300 per individual. If you gave $2,300 to his primary campaign, you can give another $2,300 to his general election campaign. And in those increments, as many as he can collect, he can spend." ... "JEFFREY BROWN: And, Ken Gross, the other thing that he said -- we saw in his statement -- is that the system is broken. He referred explicitly to the 527s used by his opponents, and people will remember the swift boat ads from the last campaign. Remind us how the system works. And what is he talking about there? KEN GROSS: Well, one of the big reforms of Watergate was to have a publicly funded system for the presidential election, particularly in the general election, which has actually remained intact, one of the few things that has remained intact until now. But what has created a breakdown in the system and what Senator Obama is referring to, these so-called 527 groups, which are outside political committees that are not regulated under these normal limits. In other words, they're not restricted on this $2,300 limit. You could literally write a $100,000 or $1 million dollar check if you word the ad correctly and the swift boat guys were the -- of course, got a lot of publicity over that and did a job on John Kerry back in 2004. And the large donations can also be made to the party committees, not totally unrestricted. So you've got the outside money; you've got the party committee money; and then you've got the candidate money, millions and millions of dollars." ... "JEANNE CUMMINGS: [McCain] doesn't have many good ones when it comes to finances. What he gets out of this is a political issue. He can take this into the debates and try to bang Barack Obama up a little bit with it. But now he is going to face an extraordinary financial disadvantage. Now, one of the problems for McCain is that he's not a very good fundraiser. He raises in a good month $21 million. A bad month for Barack Obama is $33 million. There's a difference between the two of them. McCain's not been able to bring around all of the Bush donors and get them into his campaign. So one number I looked at is, if you look at Barack Obama, he's had more than 1.5 million people give to his campaign. John McCain has a few hundred thousand who have given to his campaign. If all of Barack Obama's donors -- and that's on the down side, that's a conservative number -- if they all gave him $250 -- that's it, nowhere near the limit -- he'd have $375 million to spend in two months. That's $185 million in one month. That's $47 million in a week. And John McCain will have $85 million to spend. It is a huge advantage." ... It's a nice discussion on the consequences for both sides, the whys behind the decision, and the future for a campaign finance system that both candidates agreed to reform. Audio stream
It's the smart move. The Republican money wave is coming (you know they have abunch of stuff planned for between the conventions) and I want Obama to have the freedom to respond in the way he sees fit. I also want a smart president... everything he's done since wrapping up the nomination gives me hope he will be one.
obama had to do it because you know the RNC and 527's are going to spend way over $100 million - and that's what Obama has to stick to for justifying his decision, that he isn't just running against McCain and his $80 million, but he has to fight the swift boat attack that sunk John Kerry's ship.
Obama's team met with McCain's and they could not get a reassurance that McCain would reign in 527s (and McCain's little code message last week that he "really couldn't do anything about them" didn't help) was the reason they gave for foregoing public financing. Now McCain is coming out saying that Obama didn't keep his word? laughable With McCain gaming the primary money system getting a fraudulent loan last winter when he was broke and using his wife's plane to get around for free, I dare him to make this an issue. He really doesn't want to go there.
what's laughable is the idea that mccain could, or should, "reign in 527s." first, it's illegal to have any contact at all with 527. second, obama would make no such effort to reign in moveon, et al, whi just launched another their own despicable smears against mccain. i thought you 'spose be some kinda different...
Pay attention Obama has publically instructed his supporters not to donate to 527s. McCain will not do the McSame
No kidding. MoveOn.org just aired that stupid TV spot with the woman and her baby. I never heard Obama or anyone associated with his campaign condemn it. And I haven't seen any of these so-called smear ads from the RNC or the GOP's 527s yet. It's simple. Obama lied. He did the right thing politically, but he still broke his promise. So much for a new kind of politics in Washington.
I can't stand moveon -- gives the dems a bad name IMHO, but I guess they are a necessary evil in some respects.
It may be a while before this issue dies down. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?ref=opinion June 20, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist The Two Obamas By DAVID BROOKS God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson. But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes. This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside. But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place. Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck. Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck. Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck. Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck. And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system. But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now. And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood. The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer. I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside. All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
