McCain Feingold benefitted Obama over Hillary

It's ironic that John McCain who is the Republican nominee in waiting is one of the biggest reasons that Obama is in such great shape for the nomination.

Imagine if the latest reform went like this:

Any American can donate what they want to your campaign but it must be fully disclosed within 24 hours of receipt.

The blogs and reporters would check everyday for anything suspicious and everything would be above board.

This would have allowed Hillary to be fully funded to compete in every state, and she would be a runaway winner in this campaign.

YET

McCain Feingold has strict limits on donors, and all other rules that wound up benefitting Obama because he has an inspired large base who would give small amounts repeatedly.

Also, the rules that prohibit outside groups from politicking prevents help from friends forming to help out.

Look at the reality.  Hillary and Barack are basically equally liked by the party,  but Obama's people are more willing to give him money.  Why should that be the determining factor in the election?  Why shouldn't 1000 of Hillary's biggest supporters be able to offset the tens of thousands of Obama supporters.

True he would get bigger donations also, but after a certain point, both candidates would be fully funded.

Back in the 1990's Democrats started this "good government" type argument, and many never believed in it. But McCain put them to the test, and Bush signed the law thinking it would hurt Democrats.

Well it has helped Dems overall, but it does hurt Hillary in this race.  She has broken fundraising records, and is still behind.

Please, advocate for freedom within the Democratic party.  

btw.
If we are fully funded this November, we can for the first time compete in all 50 states.

Tags: Barack Obama, general election, Hillary Clinton, public financing (all tags)

Comments

11 Comments

Re: McCain Feingold benefitted Obama over Hillary

A.) If Obama is the nominee (and doesn't make the mistake of public financing) we will compete in all 50 states.

B.) Were you in favor of McCain-Feingold when it passed? (I was, being a campaign worker, very much not in favor of it and still think it was a huge mistake...although in the interest of full disclosure I think it has cost me money as well, and that would clearly make me biased.)

by JDF 2008-02-16 09:48AM | 0 recs
no I always thought it was bad

it went the wrong way.

The problem with "soft" money and "big" contributions was that they weren't disclosed until months later and after a complex deal had benefitted someone.  We should have had full disclosure and no limits.

I always err on the side of freedom and technology.

Oprah "gave" obama over 10 million dollars in this campaign:
by campaigining with him in Iowa, nh, sc, and california.  

I say 10 million because I think he would pay her that amount to do what she did.

Coverage coast to coast, newspaper headlines, etc.

YET,  Oprah couldn't just give him 10 million dollars.

That is what is wrong with Campaign finance reform.

Money and its' influence are always going to matter.  So why should Obama be able to receive this "contribution" from Oprah, but say Hillary can't get 10 million from Barabara Streisand.  She is past her prime so she's not a t.v. star, but she could have given the money.

by yellowdem1129 2008-02-16 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Short version of your piece

I still maintain the size of the donations is not an issue. In fact, McCain-Feingold made it harder for "the little guy" to get elected than it already is.

by JDF 2008-02-16 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Short version of your piece

The size of the donation is not an issue? You really think someone who donates $25 has the same influence on the process as the guy who donates $100,000? If you do I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
The power of 100's of thousand's of $20 donations eclipsing the power of the fat cats. The Republicans are crapping in their pants over this disparity in fund raising ability. They always had a huge advantage because of the lobbyists, corporations and millionaires boys club. That power has been eclipsed by the power of millions of small donors.

You see this as a bad thing? you sure you are in the right party?

by hankg 2008-02-16 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Short version of your piece

Look, I have worked on numerous state house races in Pennsylvania and Ohio. In those races the size of the donations are pretty much unfettered and I have not seen it do tremendous damage to the process.

What I have noticed is that McCain-Feingold made it harder for people who are independently wealthy to run for office. This is not just because of the donation limits but also because of the greater need for legal representation.

Is Campaign finance reform a good thing? Certainly, was McCain-Feingold an effective way to go about it? I do not think so.

In addition, I don't know you and I don't know what you do for the party- but I know that I am out working hard virtually EVERY day to get Democrats elected so don't you ever question my party loyalty again- it is beyond insulting- it is cowardice.

by JDF 2008-02-16 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Short version of your piece

A candidate who can attract a large base of small donors is at an advantage to candidates that are dependent on a few large donors or personal wealth. In a democracy that is a very good thing.

by hankg 2008-02-16 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Short version of your piece

I don't entirely disagree with you. I just think it could have been done in a much more equitable manner.

My real problem with it is this- Mitt Romney or Michael Bloomberg are allowed to try and buy an election but a good candidate from the middle class could not except a massive donation from a well meaning and wealthy individual... it further stacks the deck against candidates who have not amassed wealth.

by JDF 2008-02-16 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Short version of your piece

I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The law is full of problems and 527's can subvert the whole process but it is a step in the right direction. I'd rather see it improved then done away with.

by hankg 2008-02-16 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Short version of your piece

I would rather not good be the enemy of great, but that is just me.

by JDF 2008-02-16 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain Feingold benefitted Obama over Hillary

"Obama's people are more willing to give him money.  Why should that be the determining factor in the election?  Why shouldn't 1000 of Hillary's biggest supporters be able to offset the tens of thousands of Obama supporters."

That's absolutely hilarious.  No fair that a few rich people can offset a few hundred thousand supporters.

By the way, Hillary is fully funded. SHE PISSED AWAY $140 million.  Democracy is about taking big money out of politics, not bailing out Senator Entitlement whenever she runs out of money.

by mddem456 2008-02-16 01:01PM | 0 recs
Size doesn't matter. It's how you use it.
To suggest that The Hillary's campaign is not fully funded is the absolute weakest take that I have ever read on this board.  How much has she raised? $120 million?  More?  The problem with The Hillary's campaign is that she's put together a top heavy organization that's centered around high dollar advisors.  Despite this, The Hillary hasn't received good advice; the campaign has been mismanaged.  They overspent by millions of dollars in Iowa because they were planning on a one punch knockout of the other campaigns.  It turned out to be a bad choice, since it didn't work.  It would have been brilliant if they'd won, but they lost.
Frankly, it was reckless of a prohibative frontrunner to gamble like that in Iowa.  There wasn't any need for it.  She couldv'e just put up a decent fight and lowered expectations from the start, instead of in the last 3 days.
Poor planning and wasteful spending.  Scrambling to change directions every time the wind shifts.  How many different slogans has The Hillary's campaign had?  That is why she lost.  And she has lost.  She may win in Ohio and Texas, but won't garner enough delegates.  She is in a death spiral.  The campaign doesn't even have enough cash on hand to be hemorrhaging dollars.
It's done.
by blandon70 2008-02-17 03:19AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads