LA Times ignored Obama's FEC filing in claiming he "won't use public funds"
A February 23 Los Angeles Times article, titled "Obama wags a finger at fundraising, but his other hand is out," falsely reported that Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) 2008 presidential campaign "won't use public funds." In fact, Obama's campaign has indicated that it will "consider" restricting itself to public funding during the general election if the Republican candidate also does so.
The article also suggested that there was a contrast between Obama's "repeated[] call[s] for limiting the role of money in politics" and the fact that he "left California this week with millions of dollars pledged to his campaign for the White House." In fact, the day before the article was published, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) had issued a draft advisory opinion approving Obama's request to "solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election while retaining the option of refunding the contributions and receiving public funds for the general election if he receives his party's nomination for President."
According to the FEC draft opinion:
Press reports indicate that certain candidates and potential candidates for the 2008 presidential election have decided that, if they become their parties' nominees, they will choose not to receive public funds in the general election but will, instead, fund their campaigns exclusively with private contributions within the confines of FECA [Federal Election Campaign Act]. [Obama's campaign] has begun soliciting contributions via the Obama Website, not only for the primary election but also for the general election. Nevertheless, if he receives the Democratic nomination for President, Senator Obama has represented that he will consider opting to receive public funds for his general election campaign if the Republican candidate agrees, or independently decides, to receive public funds.
The draft opinion said that Obama would be able to receive public funds for the general election if his campaign "(1) deposits and maintains all private contributions designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, and (3) refunds the private contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds." The FEC is now accepting written public comments on its draft opinion and will issue a final opinion after a March 1 public hearing on the matter.
The Los Angeles Times article, however, simply reported that Obama "won't use public funds":
It is, Obama has said, "the original sin of everyone who's ever run for office -- myself included."
"In order to get elected, we need to raise vast sums of money by meeting and dealing with people who are disproportionately wealthy," he said in March 2006 as he urged passage of more restrictions on campaign money and lobbying -- a concept embraced by other Democrats in the race and some Republicans.
Obama is also advocating an overhaul of the tax-funded financing system of presidential campaigns. Like other major candidates, however, he won't use public funds -- because he would have to abide by spending caps considered too restrictive.
Good to catch this inaccuracy. Not good that Obama will do what everyone else has done, purely in the belief that only by bowing to corporate sponsorship can he get in the office that will let him be our Savior.
He will be in the thicket with the rest of the rabbits in Congress: look at the latest pillory of the public supported by, of all people, Charley Rangel (Hillary's amigo). This is a must read. http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021607LA.shtml
Thanks, OLive. Appreciate being reminded of the game that goes on.
Well, they got to think of their futures....as lobbyists for the same corporations they refuse to exercise congressional oversight over.
Government for sale! Get your government for sale! Pollution, poisons, slave labour, buy it here! Government for sale!
There's that "liberal media" again.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
You and MMFA really have nothing to worry about. The story was on page A21. The LA Times absolutely loves Barack Obama. I have never seen a major newspaper give a political candidate such loving, ecstatic worship. Front-page color photos, flattering profiles, the works. It's almost like they had to print an article like this in order to make their bias not so ridiculous.
Relax. The liberals in the media know what they're doing. When they get accused of bias, they can now say, "Look. Here's an article we did critical of Obama." (And they won't tell you they put it on page A21.)
Also ... It's still very early in the campaign. I venture to say you won't see articles like this when all the chips are down and things really start to count.
Shoes, are you still putting the L.A. Times in the "liberal media" category?
Do presidential candidates really need money to win? Lower offices do, but a presidential candidate has media saturation by default. Who picks their president based on commercials or signs in someone's yard?
Each party will get its 40%. The rest will vote for who the media tells them to vote for. What is there for money to do?
Unfortunately, Steeve, I don't think anyone can even get in the running without a pretty good wad behind them.Then they have to avoid offending large segments of the country that will flinch at one or two issues that they've been convinvced are important.
I'd like to see a wide-open process where each candidate gets to write an essay about their views, maybe including a questionnaire covering basic issues.This could be available on-line, or as printed material available like tax forms or DMV literature, going from the local regionals to the national finals.
Then to debates (the finals), done as round robin or elimination rounds, narrowing the field down to 5 or 10. Material from the debates regarding the candidates positions would be part of a quiz given to potential voters, who would need to show a familiarity with the issues and candidates in order to vote.The quiz could be given well in advance of the elections, to allow studying and take-overs for those who don't pass the first time.
And campaign commercials would be prohibited from using music,including maudlin piano and ominous strings.
Unfortunately, Steeve, I don't think anyone can even get in the running without a pretty good wad behind them
It takes money to become nationally known, and probably to win the nomination. But when it's down to Repulican vs Democrat for president, I don't see how money has anything left to do.
Then they have to avoid offending large segments of the country that will flinch at one or two issues that they've been convinvced are important.
Those people typically "know" which party supports such issues and will vote for that party's candidate regardless. Just watch all the "Christian values" people flock to Guiliani.
Right, Steeve, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your statement that , after a certain point, money has no effect. I was only pointing out that, in a country the size of ours, getting out of the starting gate, even getting a little name recognition, takes some dough.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I wasn't questioning your statement.
The money is about the industry that has grown up around politics...polling, advertising, consultants, state campaign offices, etc. And the people involved in those industries want cash, and lots of it. The third largest revenue source for TV is political advertising. They milk the politicians for cash, they know that if they keep their prices high, only the most elite power-n-money-connected will be able to pay their prices. It's a luxury market.
And we, the common people, are kept excluded for a reason. It's an age old story of exclusion from power. We are to be the serfs in the new corporate feudalism, impoverished and politically impotent, trained to consume only Republi-Coke or Pepsidems, simply two brand names for the same corporofascist product. It's time we revolted on those who claim mastery over free men. Time to chose third parties and liberate ourselves.