Perhaps bolstering his argument that he wants a purely people-funded campaign, Barack Obama has succeeded in getting progressive group MoveOn to abandon its 527 arm. It will still raise money as a PAC, however, with more restrictions.
In 2004, MoveOn's 527 group spent $20 million. A spokesperson for the group told Talking Points Memo: "This is an affirmation that we, like Senator Obama, believe that this election can be won by ordinary Americans giving small donations."
That will be MoveOn's challenge, as it will no longer be able to raise large amounts from labor unions and max-ed-out individuals whose donations exceed $5,000 limit.
This seems like a smart move. Since Obama has proven successful with small donors, the moral pressure is now on McCain to reject 527s. If McCain cannot persuade his 527 supporters, Obama will still come out looking like he's in control of his more positive movement.
But do you think people will still be upset by Obama's abandonment of the public financing system, a decision that some say proves Obama is just like very other politician?
Diane von Furstenberg
Brand Alley
Stiefel
I'll agree that Sen. Obama did go back on his word to accept public financing. I for one am thrilled he did. I don't believe that holding Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain to their word on a point that only perpetuates what's wrong with our campaign finance system is in our best interest. If a leader can not change their views to pursue a better course of action for the greater good than that is stagnate leadership that we do not need in Washington. By breaking away from the standard Sen. Obama is putting his money where his mouth is, remaining genuine to his promise of positive change and forcing the issue of campaign finance reform. We can either get hung up on the act of one breaking their word or we can embrace the positive benefits of the end result which is a progressive discussion and giant step forward towards campaign finance reform.
1Hypno, I just said yesterday (I think) that I love Atticus Finch, and here he is!
2Mr. Peck, I heartily disagree. Mr. Obama has taken the advantage of being able to raise more funds without the assistance of public funds and turned it into a message of reform. It's a cynical gesture and shouldn't be viewed as anything but. I don't mind people supporting Obama, but don't tell me a sow's ear is a silk purse.
3Obama is wildly successful at raising money from small donors. So it's sort of amusing that he's rejecting the big money in hopes that McCain will feel "moral pressure" to do the same. Sorry but if he hadn't been rolling in dough in the primaries I doubt he'd be taking the "high road" right now.
4I think this was a brilliant move by Obama. Any other candidate that took this path would be severely handicapping his campaign, but he's got such grass roots support that he'll have plenty of money to run a campaign that reaches beyond the limited funds from public financing could have offered. He's denying special interest groups and lobbyists of having any say in his policies, something that truly sets him apart from other politicians. I'm willing to look past the fact that he did do a bit of flip-flopping on this issue since it sets the precedent for a better America - and also since McCain has done some flip-flopping of his own in this arena, but he flopped more toward utilizing funding from special interests and lobbyists.
5This is where I heartily disagree with most Obama supporters. Do you really think that by accepting money from private donors, Mr. Obama is making it harder for special interest groups to donate? It's just the opposite. And as for moral pressure, how is accepting money that is public, wrong?
6stiletta: I can understand how his actions look shady and I don't blame anyone for throwing a cloke of suspicion over his actions. Like I said he did go back on his word. You're right in suggesting that Sen. Obama will be able to raise more money than Sen. McCain that however is not a guarantee that is simply a possibility but yes the cap is no longer there.
It has been grass roots (SMALL) donations of $100 or less that have carried him this far and it has been documented that these donations have come from for the most part every day citizens. By rejecting a corrupt campaign finance system which gives power to high price corporate donors and telling his 527's to reform or back off he is putting himself out there to take an enormous gamble. The American voter is fickle and the slightest change in the political wind could leave him financially impotent with no where to go. His decision not only gives the power of finance back to the voter but it also holds true to his word (funny enough) to reject corporate control of his campaign through finance.
7Actually, less than 1/3 of his total donations are from people who gave $100 or less. 50% of his donations came from donations of $1,000 or more. (according to POTUS 08)
8Well you better send that note to Meet The Press UnDave and tell them to get their info straight.
9UnDave, I think there is a lot of hocus pocus going on with the numbers. The Wall Street Journal had a diagram that showed that he does have far more tiny donation donors than he does large ones. His small donors waaaaaay out number the large donors. But yes, I think it does make sense that the large donations might make up a larger percentage when you just focus on the money totals. For every one $1,000 donors, you need 100 donors that give $100.
The fact is that he has more individuals donating to him than any candidate ever before. The triumph isn't just the money raised, it is the HUGE number of people that contributed. It is unprecedented. The fact that so many individuals have given what they can during these very trying economic times is a really big deal.
10I'm still mad at Obama for the telecom thing, but who else am I going to vote for? The half-dead guy?
11I'm wondering if this is a statistics thing? There may have been more little donors, but the large donors accounted for a larger portion of his donations. Doeas that make sense?
12It does make sense because the "large donors" have been donating a much larger amount of money. For every one donor that gives $1000, there are 100 people that give $10. The large donors are going to account for a bigger portion because they are giving more.
13I know people in their twenties donating to Obama. When has that happened?
14The Young Republicans Janneth. They donate tons. Some are still late teens. Have forever.
15Lets not forget that the Obama camp counts every purchase as a single donation (ie. I donate 10 bucks then buy a tshirt for 15 bucks, counts as 2 separate donors and donations).
16Cabaker, I don't see anything wrong with counting t-shirts like that.
I have spoken with soooooo many people who have given to this campaign that have never given to a campaign ever before. I don't think any amount of number twisting takes away the historic and unprecedented number of small donors he has.
17Aren't all campaigns required to count purchases as donations?
18Well whether their counting t-shirts or juju bees this gentlemen is cleaning up in donations and giving corporate donors the back handed chin flip.
Right On Brotha!
19I just want to put a quick note out there. PACs get their money from individuals and all campaigns and PACs are prohibited from accepting corporate donations. I'm glad Obama has stuck by what he said and not accepted PAC money. However, I personally don't see what is so wrong with PAC money. Many people who donate to PACs are also small donors.
20Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.