Barack Obama and Public Financing: Counting Angels on a Pinhead

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

I remember only wisps of the first conversations about the profession of politics I heard as a very young lad.

"It's a dirty, dirty business," I recall one adult saying to my father, as the three of us stood for reasons unremembered in an appropriately grimy print shop (probably non-union). The speaker's words -- and his striking solemnity -- puzzled me, since I had no knowledge of his subject, but they intrigued me even more, for the same reason.

My other earliest memory is that of a voice -- I have no recollection of whose -- of an inventively metaphorical if not profoundly philosophical bent, observing of this vague thing called politics: "It takes a lot of manure to grow a beautiful rose." I sensed his reference was not entirely botanical.

Yesterday, as Barack Obama reneged on his pledge of public financing almost exclusively because he happens to be crushing his opponent in the arena of private financing, those early memories stirred.

Yes, I thought, both gentlemen were correct and likely always will be: Politics, no matter how stylistically "new," was then, is now, and forever will be a dirty, shit-kicking business. 

And yet, I also thought, perhaps he of the horticultural metaphor had made the more important, if not more hopeful, point -- yes, the verbal manure does get deep and the crappy skulduggery even deeper, but what of the consequent policy roses? Are they not, after all, worth it -- if "it" is what it takes?

Long ago I determined that my personality and natural resistance to the deepest of bullshit were suited only to writing about politics and not, God forbid, the actual practice of it. For there is, for example, no way I could stand on my head in front of a video camera and deliver -- sans smirk -- the definitive, upside-down crappola that Mr. Obama delivered to his supporters yesterday via email:

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections."

But it was, of course, not only an easy decision, it was the absolute easiest. And only a consummate pol comfortable with shooting dirty pool could look straight at you and claim he's saving the village by destroying it.

By now you are likely sensing that I was not, well, 100 percent supportive of Mr. Obama's decision to trash -- sorry, rescue -- his earlier principles. And I have written accordingly in the past.

Nevertheless I am abandoning my objections. After witnessing eight years of the unmitigatedly catastrophic George W. Bush -- and knowing we cannot afford another four -- I am more than willing, at long last, to accept Obama's manure of rank hypocrisy in exchange for the growth of a few pleasant roses.

No, I don't buy the George Will libertarian argument that money is speech, and the more of it in politics the better. No, I don't buy the argument that Obama is "democratizing" the business of campaign finance; the big money is still there -- buying influence -- and more is coming.

And no, I am not pleased by all the progressives who so ardently advocated public financing for so long, only to collapse at the first sign of financial advantage -- and then further argue with the insulting, evasive artfulness of medieval scholasticism that they are not, in fact, collapsing into rank hypocrisy.

No, I don't buy any of that. Let's just face and admit the ugly truth of it: Obama's decision to back out of public financing was a colossally tawdry flip-flop of opportunism, no matter how the Keith Olbermanns of this world wish to spin it.

But you know what? I am willing to suffer the stench -- to openly pitch whatever remaining principles there were on the matter -- if it means the nation's final threat of a John McCain administration will be averted as a result.

If it takes the destruction of the public-financing village to save the larger village itself -- and now don't we sound just like the domestic terrorist-hunting, civil-liberties denying neocons? -- then so be it. Just don't tell me it's not hypocrisy -- and don't tell me there won't be a boomerang price to pay down the road.

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

Technorati Tags:

Anything but McCain.Right!

You have missed the point.It is not about election finances.The point is what is the difference when he cannot be trusted either?

Deserting our principles

So now it is OK to do the stuff that we hated when Bush was doing it. A sad day. Torture is OK. Now not keeping your word is OK. When I think of how Hillary could have flipped about her vote on the war But she refused to flop and we mocked her.

Hard to know

It's hard to know whether to be disappointed/outraged at Obama's decision to opt out of public financing or to accept his claim/spin that he can continue to rely on large numbers of small donations and that that is a different way for "the people" to be involved.

I'm thinking that the current system is like what a NYTimes letter writer said yesterday (June 19) about the much touted Massachusetts "health care plan." He wrote that the difficulty is that the Massachusetts plan deals only with insurance coverage, and doesn't deal either with access to health care - can you find a primary care doctor in your neighborhood to accept you as a patient - and cost.

So is public financing really sufficient or is it at best a first step with so many uncovered problems - like 527's - that it sounds better than it is. The influence of big money on our political system is disastrous, but I'm not convinced that the current public financing is a sufficient solution.

Is there anyone out there reading this that has a serious and deep understanding of this question who can enlighten the rest of us?

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

I want Obama to win

And I like anything that gets Old Grampy's goat. I doubled my usual donation to Obama yesterday.

Public campaign financing

When public financing was introduced, the idea was to balance the power of big money interests with the power of the ordinary voter.

A lot has changed since the introduction of the idea.

The fairness doctrine in the media has been removed.

The internet has provided a means for amassing big money from a large number of ordinary voters.

It is time to reassess whether public campaign financing is the solution to the power of money overwhelming the principle of one person/one vote.

Ignore the existing solutions and the old catch phrases. Start thinking with a completely open mind as to what is the best set of rules for the current circumstance. ssg13565

What is the best for me?

And what exactly are the "current circumstances"?Except that it suits me now and not him.When will it suit my good friend Barack to stand by his word?

Oh, grow up. Insisting that

Oh, grow up. Insisting that your candidate be purer than anybody, that your candidate be purer than anyone living, is the material of fairytales. Clutching your handkerchief and weeping when your candidate changes an earlier position is ludicrous. Obama is learning as he campaigns--why can't you, and why can't the other Democrats who are subsiding onto their couches with the vapors over this? If this is the only position he is forced to change in the course of his candidacy and (I hope) his presidency, I will be greatly surprised, and so will every other adult with a nodding acquaintance with real world politics. He's going to do things people won't agree with. He's going to do things that you may want to whoop and call Foul! over. He is not you, any more than he is the personification of all that is Great and Right and Pure. He is a human being, making tough choices under unbearable amounts of pressure, and they are not all going to be the choices that those of the ivory tower, who don't have to get their whites dirty in actual politics, would make. It's very easy to sit in safety and complain, isn't it? You already have told us that you opted out of nasty old politics. Obama hasn't. How can you say you would not make these choices, were you in his place? He is still better than Mr. Riddled-with-lobbyists-10,000-years-make-`em-have-babies McCain. Instead of picking apart the guy with a chance to win and change our eight-year streak as world criminal, why not try coming up with analysis and intelligence that will reveal to the undecided the points what will tip them toward change for the better, instead of the Same Old Thing?

Grow up

That is exactly what Bill Clinton said and there was uproar.This guy is a fairy tale. So grow up and forget that stuff. Now Obama tells us the same.Bill was right all along.

Obama's 'flip-flop'

PM, Keith Olbermann's defense of Obama's opt-out of public financing is entirely correct. It certainly was NOT 'spin'. Essentially, this revolves around Obama's checking of a box on a questionnaire to all five candidates in a debate (left unanswered by all but Obama) regarding public campaign financing, which Obama agreed to if the Repug candidate would also agree. Meanwhile, of course, McInsane has been spending private money on his general election campaign for months. So once Obama declines public financing, McInsane immediately says gee, I was about to accept public financing, I'm deeply disappointed in Obama, etc, etc. Obama's private donations are from small, private donors, and he will not accept PAC or large corporate donations, nor will the DNC. 'Rank Hypocrisy' seems to me, at least, to be way off the mark.

I agree totally...

I think it is a stinking flip-flop also and yelled a lot when I heard it. The only salvation to the stench will be if Obama really won't take PAC or Corporate money. This is a repudiation of a basic progressive principle. Perhaps the only way to really solve this problem is to give all players a level field via several different means, such as free media coverage or paid for by taxes. But since the public airways are just that PUBLIC - perhaps all networks should have to give equal free time to all viable candidates.

Not a Flip-Flop

What Senator Obama said is that the public financing in its present state is broken. The fact that this was an opportune moment for him to reject public money is just another feather in his cap. But, your ideas about a level playing field are well stated, and I agree that equal free time for all candidates would remove some of the sleaze factor from our election process. Paper trails at voting precincts would also help.

PM, I Always Thought the Whole Point to Public Financing Was to

get away from Big Corporate Money and Lobbyist money subverting the democratic process - which Clinton's campaign openly and gleefully took, but Obama's campaign has managed not to do. And you can hardly claim McCain has been either honest OR forthright on his stand(s) on public financing, after all - he was clearly hoping to mousetrap Obama on accepting only public financing while he continued to play games w/his campaign's finances.

Would I be happier if both candidates just took public financing and free airtime (assuming Reagan's Telecom Deregulation Act didn't allow the television and radio networks to just thumb their noses at the very idea)? Absolutely. But I'm too old to believe in Santa Kuchinich or the Easter Nader (or even The Tooth Paul!) anymore - I'm even too old to hope that Obama will, once he's President, start impeachment proceedings against Anton Scalia, Sam Alito, John Roberts and Clarence Thomas for Contempt of the Constitution they swore to uphold and Criminal Incompetence, let alone George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for High Treason.

If we want viable and real public financing (not this "opt-in if you have no money of your own and don't mind losing" system we currently have), we first need to get someone sympathetic to public financing in power - and not some blatant double-dealer and double-dipper like McCain, either! Until then, public financing of Presidential campaigns has as much chance of success as a Nader Presidential bid does....