Obama pledge to accept federal funding

[Damuri_Ajashi]

Obama is now waffling on his pledge to accept federal financing for the general election. This could be a dealbreaker for me. Does this bother anyone else that Obama made a pledge to run on a federally provided $85 million and then waffles when he is asked about it after he raises $36 million in one month.

Am I demanding too much idealism from Obama? Isn’t that idealism a large part of why some people support him to begin with? Once he turns me into a cynic again, I probably stay home on election day.

[Quartz]

Is this what you’re wanting to debate?

Seems like brinksmanship to me.

[E-Sabbath]

Is he waffling, or has he said nothing firm yet? Looks like he’s said nothing firm yet.

Maybe he will, maybe he won’t. I think it’s a good move to let McCain hammer away about it for as long as possible before making an announcement. Tactically. Fight one opponent at a time. Focus on Hillary, deal with her. Everything McCain says about Obama just raises Obama’s credibility as the candidate in waiting.

[Richard_Parker]

What pledge? Seriously, what are you referring to when you use the word “pledge”? When asked whether he would accept public financing if his opponent did, he answered:

Yes; 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.

Here’s what Obama had to say about it in his editorial yesterday:

As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars “independently,” while the candidates they favor with these ads “wink and nod” at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.

We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.

I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.