Brilliant.
His campaign rolled out a video statement that said the public financing system was broken in this country because inevitably, 527's (special interest PACs) are able to run unlimited ads against him without impunity.
This is true. And regardless of your stance on public financing of elections, this is an amazing political maneuver with the perfect spin. Reject the system because it's inefficient and let the internet rake in the cash.
Now that his campaign warchest is unrestricted by federal guidelines, he doesn't need to be as cautious or strategic as his Republican rival. Consider the states where he recently bought ad time:
Imagine that... Democrats are playing in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Georgia, Indiana and North Carolina!Is this some crazy jedi mind trick or is a serious challange to McCain's campaign? The Obama campaign is dispatching staff to these traditionally Republican states with really cheap media markets. The prospect of Democrats running the table seems unlikely to me, but I'm encouraged by a couple extremely interesting polls out this week. In Alaska, Obama trails McCain by 4 points according to Rasmussen, 45-41 (Jun 16), and in Georgia, Obama is within 1 point according to Insider Advantage, 43-44 (Jun 18).
The sky is the limit. The Obama campaign will use its internet steamengine to run the table on the cash-strapped Republicans. The political atmosphere in the US is such that perhaps it's a bargin for Democrats to advertise during national primetime television. According to Advertising Age: "[The Obama campaign] has asked NBC Universal about Olympics advertising including $500,000, $2 million and $4 million packages of ads." Extremely expensive yes, but high exposure in a diverse media market where conditions are hostile to Republicans.
5 comments:
If by brilliant you mean corrupt
Liberal 527s outspent the hell out of conservative 527s in the primaries and will in the general election. Obama was worried because the DNC wasn't raising money and the murkiness of not reporting to the feds will allow him to renege on his promise to not take lobbyist money.
Stop and think about the message you just posted about this money making your viable in some Red State - you are not viable there without money - voters do not like your message. Your plan is not to appeal to what these voters want/need it is to buy up as much air time as possible with dirty money - if that is "change", I'm fine staying the same.
eh, they all take money from special interest PACs. but realize that over 1 million people have donated to the Obama campaign. never before has there been a fund raising tool like the internet, and the Obama campaign has certainly mastered its use. if the tables were turned, and McCain had the fund raising power of the Obama campaign, he too would have pulled this.
but what makes this move legitimate in my mind is that it maintains his accountability to the people. as Biden was arguing this morning on Meet the Press, the purpose of campaign finance reform was to ensure to special interests weren't pouring money into campaigns. but if the public, through millions of small donations, is investing in a campaign, Obama doesn't have to be a slave to the interests.
PS: I would've never imagined the Republican party to be such an ardent supporter of public campaign finance as they have been this past week.
Wait, let me rephrase a bit.
Biden kept making the distinction between large money from special interest groups and/or large money from single groups and small money from 1 million different people.
My problem with this is there has to be another side to the argument. Yes it is awful when a candidate gets large amounts of money from single groups or special interest groups. But does it make him more honest if he gets many small donations? I suspect that it does not. At least if he is taking money from special interest groups he has to cater to that group. That is to say he has to honor the expectations of the group that gave him that money. What does a candidate have to honor to 1 million people that gave him 25, 50 100 dollars etc.?
You have two types of main donors, those who are donating for the first time because they buy in to Obama's message and then theres the loyal democrats (like those in my family) who donate to EVERY democratic presidential nominee. If Barack is going to lose the support of these small donors he is going to have to do something SO BAD that he will lose the election anyway. So the money these people are donating really is a moot point, considering their support is unwaivering anyway. If the support is lost, Obama won't be elected anyway. To do something to piss off this crowd would lose him the election whether they were doners or not.
Long story short, this whole "thing" does nothing to fix a corrupt system. Its sort of like drilling for oil offshore. Its great for right now, maybe it will even fix the problem for awhile, but it just digs us deeper into a shithole down the road.
So let me try to sum up this argument I am making. If the goal if campaign finance reform is to ensure that money is not coming from special interest (giving us a special interest president) and instead is coming from many small, personal doners, nothing really changes. I suspect the candidates aren't going to stop favoring special interest groups even if the money flow stopped. There is nothing that binds Obama to his 1.4 million doners, nothing at all.
We need to go back to elections that are won by real issues, connecting with the people and actually trying to make a difference and not just attempting to buy votes where you can with slogans, ad-bombs, and glitter.
Post a Comment