Clinton Bid Heralds Demise of Public Financing

[pikesome]

Story (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/us/politics/23donate.html?ei=5090&en=59e8bf53eeb5ebb6&ex=1327208400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)


Death Knell May Be Near for Public Election Funds
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 — The public financing system for presidential campaigns, a post-Watergate initiative hailed for decades as the best way to rid politics of the corrupting influence of money, may have quietly died over the weekend.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York became the first candidate since the program began in 1976 to forgo public financing for both the primary and the general election because of the spending limits that come with the federal money. By declaring her confidence that she could raise far more than the roughly $150 million the system would provide for the 2008 presidential primaries and general election, Mrs. Clinton makes it difficult for other serious candidates to participate in the system without putting themselves at a significant disadvantage.



And...

Story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201304_pf.html)



Clinton Bid Heralds Demise of Public Financing

By Dan Balz and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 23, 2007; A01

The public financing system designed to clean up presidential campaigns in the wake of the Watergate scandal may have died on Saturday when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced her bid for the White House.


Follow the links for the rest of the stories, they are too big to cut and paste. Besides the WP and the NYT probably would like the traffic.

Thoughts? I'm a bit undecided on this, I see some good and some bad all the way around this.

[MarcBulger]

I thought the Dems only hung around poor people, and were only for the poor, working poor, and the middle class. Maybe if she wins she will give me that middle class tax cut her husband promised, and never delivered.

[Adept Havelock]

I thought

Sure, pull the other one. It's got bells on.

[pikesome]

I thought the Dems only hung around poor people, and were only for the poor, working poor, and the middle class. Maybe if she wins she will give me that middle class tax cut her husband promised, and never delivered.

Even is you give the greatest benefit of the doubt to the Dems and their motives, it wouldn't change the fact that campaigns require money and that they should have every right to collect as much as they want. That argument works for Reps too. Since completely eliminating money isn't possible (the Supreme Court, Constitution) I would think the next best thing is to let both sides collect what they want. It means we have to wade through oceans of manure but at least both sides have the same opportunity to shovel it.

Having typed all that, I wish there was some, workable, way to limit the expenditures, I just can't come up with a good idea instead.

[patteeu]

Even is you give the greatest benefit of the doubt to the Dems and their motives, it wouldn't change the fact that campaigns require money and that they should have every right to collect as much as they want. That argument works for Reps too. Since completely eliminating money isn't possible (the Supreme Court, Constitution) I would think the next best thing is to let both sides collect what they want. It means we have to wade through oceans of manure but at least both sides have the same opportunity to shovel it.

Having typed all that, I wish there was some, workable, way to limit the expenditures, I just can't come up with a good idea instead.

I agree with you. I think disclosure is about the best we can hope for. I don't see any good way to limit funds although I wouldn't be surprised, should democrats win in 2008, if they use the huge money that will be spent in this campaign as a reason to revise the public funding laws to make them relevant again. It will be ironic that it was a dem who first opted completely out.

[jAZ]

Even is you give the greatest benefit of the doubt to the Dems and their motives, it wouldn't change the fact that campaigns require money and that they should have every right to collect as much as they want. That argument works for Reps too. Since completely eliminating money isn't possible (the Supreme Court, Constitution) I would think the next best thing is to let both sides collect what they want. It means we have to wade through oceans of manure but at least both sides have the same opportunity to shovel it.

Having typed all that, I wish there was some, workable, way to limit the expenditures, I just can't come up with a good idea instead.
Publicly funded elections is both possible and effective. I didn't even know that the program seemingly being abandoned even existed. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

That alone says plenty about the effectiveness of the Nixon era program.

[patteeu]

Publicly funded elections is both possible and effective. I didn't even know that the program seemingly being abandoned even existed. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

That alone says plenty about the effectiveness of the Nixon era program.

You've never heard of "matching funds?" Have you noticed the checkoff box on your tax form? Is that not what we're talking about here? Now I'm questioning my own understanding, but I think that's what we're talking about.