Tomah Journal - Printable Version

Story originally printed in the Tomah Journal or online at www.tomahjournal.com

Published - Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Editorial: Public financing already endangered, Obama just delivered final blow

The New York Times headline, “Obama opt-out threatens system,” is wrong. Obama’s decision to refuse federal funding for the general election doesn’t threaten public financing of presidential campaigns; it strikes the final blow against public financing of presidential campaigns.

Obama, the likely Democratic nominee for president, declined $84 million in public money for the general election campaign and can spend as much as he wants between the end of the Democratic convention Aug. 29 and the Nov. 4 general election. His Republican opponent, John McCain, has accepted the $84 million in public dollars set aside for his campaign.

Obama will not go down in history as the candidate solely responsible for destroying the system. The unraveling began eight years ago, when George W. Bush became the first non-self-funded candidate to bypass the system in the primaries. By 2004, Bush, John Kerry and Howard Dean all declined public funds for the primary season, and in 2008, John Edwards was the only upper-tier candidate to accept public funds.

McCain is a particularly interesting case. He agreed to accept public financing for his primary campaign and actually used his federal matching funds as collateral for a loan to keep his then-struggling campaign alive. But when his campaign regained frontrunner status, he opted out of public financing for the primaries. At best, McCain violated a written promise; at worst, McCain violated the law.

It’s unlikely that any serious presidential candidate will ever accept public financing under the existing rules, which are ripe for overhaul.

First, the silly distinction between the primary and general election must be scrapped. Hillary Clinton has nearly $24 million she can’t use to pay off campaign debts because it was money set aside for the general election. Elections are elections, and candidates shouldn’t be burdened with maintaining separate primary and general election accounts.

Second, the checkoff system has to go. If public financing of presidential elections is a good idea, Congress should simply appropriate the money. We don’t have checkoffs for the National Endowment of the Arts or Abstinence Education; public financing of presidential elections should be no different.

Third, we need a Supreme Court that recognizes the difference between speech and the financial transactions that facilitate speech. The latter can be regulated consistent with the First Amendment, and until the court recognizes that distinction, it’s very difficult to regulate the money flow, some of which is little more than legalized bribery. How else, for example, to explain the existence of unnecessary middle men that profit from the privatized, bloated and corrupt student loan system?

Obama delivered the final blow against a public financing system that was already doomed. A complete overhaul is the only hope that any serious presidential candidate will accept public financing in 2012.