Is Obama Hedging His Funds?

Once upon a time, Senator Obama promised to bring a new brand of politics to Washington. Accordingly, he pledged to limit spending by accepting public funding in the general election provided the Republican nominee followed suit. It would be hard to argue with the politics behind that pledge when he gave it; carve out a fresh change-oriented image while prepping a good line of attack against the money edge the GOP always seems to enjoy in the general. As life would have it, Obama turned out to be such an unexpected and astonishingly prolific fundraiser that his regret for having made this pledge is rather transparent to all but the most casual followers of campaign politics. Now that McCain has called Obama to task on this issue (whether it be to call his bluff or to nullify Obama's expected fundraising edge), I think Obama is misplaying his hand by hedging that bet.

The worst thing Obama can do at this point would be to succumb to the temptation of big bucks. Don't get me wrong, I understand this temptation. Having a money advantage over the GOP nominee would stack the deck in ways Democrats have only dreamed of in campaigns past and would be oh so satisfying. Since his fundraising prowess comes more from tons of small-money donations instead of the wholesale corporate whoring prevalent on the right, it'd arguably be a "clean" money advantage as well. His spinners are already test-floating a few variations of talking points to justify this option by reminding us from where his money is coming. This isn't going to work.

The Obama campaign is trying to suggest that they've merely come up with "an alternative source of public funding" by accepting money from "the public". This element of their spin is sadly insulting when one considers that they're trying to equate private donations to public funding when we all know damn well that these concepts are mutually exclusive. This unfortunate hand they're playing only legitimizes the decades-old arguments we typically hear from the GOP side that the buying off of politicians is as American as apple pie. The left shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that this year's money advantage is anything but a lucky and temporary side effect of a lot of pissed off people reacting to too many years of Bushworld.

For the short term, Obama risks being framed by Republicans as being all talk and no walk. That he is just another smooth-talking lefty politician that lacks the courage to mean what he says is exactly what they'll be saying. This should play in nicely with their overall strategy of framing Obama as being all flash and no substance (with no experience to boot). For the long term, Obama risks complicating the task of taking money out of Washington politics in the foreseeable future. Money-grubbing Republicans would love few things more than to have an example of at least one Democratic money advantage to support the notion that fair is fair as it relates to our current campaign finance system of over-the-table bribery. Do Democrats only hate private campaign funding when they suck at it?

To put my own cards on the table, I have never really considered private donations as being a form of free speech to begin with. It is difficult for me to view it as nothing other than the darkest form of commerce; securing returns for investments while sticking the average citizen with the double blind. I would love to see the day where lobbyists would have to rely on the strength of their positions instead of their wallets and just let the chips fall where they may. The stain of money taints everything that could be more pure in Washington. I'd hate to see Obama of all people helping to sustain one of the most overtly corrupt systems of favor brokering in the long history of skulduggery.

No, I believe Obama should keep his pledge to conduct a general election campaign within the letter and the spirit of the existing public financing system. The estimated 85 million dollars he'd have in doing so would not only prevent a Republican money advantage that could still otherwise materialize, it would do so in a way that portrays him as being above the fray in both mind and body. Paid-media advantages tend to be minimized in presidential and other high profile campaigns where copious amounts of earned media are a given. As far as candidates go, Obama is as well suited to win inside the realm of earned media as any candidate our side has seen in generations. Let's not buy the White House or more seats in Congress just because we're currently flush with cash and because we can. Our mandate will be bigger if we can win on ideas alone. Wasn't that the whole point Senator? It's your call.