Voters who don't see Barack Obama as your typical politician must be disappointed by his squirming to get out of a commitment to public financing in the presidential campaign.
In an interview with The Inquirer and Daily News editorial boards yesterday, Obama again refused to commit to accepting public financing. He said it's "a judgment I'm going to have to make" in talks with likely GOP nominee John McCain. Last fall, Obama said he would participate in public financing in the general election if his Republican opponent agreed. No ifs, ands or buts. Since then, he has been giving strong hints that he doesn't intend to honor that commitment.
Last week, the Illinois Democrat contorted the definition of public financing thusly: "We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign, they can get on the Internet and finance it," he said.
Only if we've entered a
parallel
universe is that public financing. What he describes is a traditional fund-raising effort, albeit one that has been fabulously successful. To date, his campaign has raised nearly $230 million. Admirably, about half of that has come from donors who gave $200 or less.
Public financing, in place since the 1970s, gives candidates federal dollars in exchange for their agreeing to limit their campaign spending. The system is financed by taxpayers who check off a $3 donation on their tax returns. This fall, the Democratic and Republican nominees would be eligible for about $85 million each.
It creates a more level playing field, reduces chances for corruption and helps to ensure the campaign is about ideas, not who can raise the most money.
But Obama has been doing so well at raising money - $40 million in March alone - that he obviously is having second thoughts. If he wins the Democratic nomination, accepting public money could very well blunt an advantage in campaign wealth over McCain, who also hasn't made up his mind on public financing.
Even if Obama does accept public financing, he would be free to spend the money he's raised up until the Democratic convention in late summer. He could also boost donations in the fall to the Democratic National Committee, which would spend the money in support of his candidacy.
One reason Obama has done well in the party primaries is that he's seen as a reformer. But now that he's raising money prodigiously, he's trying to change the definition of "reform."
He argues that his small donors "will have as much access and influence" over his campaign as the wealthy and powerful usually exert. But there are plenty of wealthy and powerful donors in Obama's camp, too.
At least 79 wealthy "bundlers" have each raised $200,000 for him - including Oprah Winfrey. And 27,000 donors have given the maximum $2,300 for individuals.
We already have a parallel universe of campaign financing out there - the so-called 527 groups - that raise and spend money on behalf of candidates without regulation. In the last presidential election, billionaire George Soros and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did the dirty work. Similar groups are raising money again. We don't need another parallel universe. The nominees for president shouldn't redefine public financing to gain an advantage.