Obama and McCain: reformers or more of the same?

Posted 6/25/2008 09:56:00 AM

Barack Obama and John McCain claim to be candidates of principle and reform. But the actions of both related to public financing in the presidential race raise doubts.

Obama broke a previous pledge last week and announced that he would opt out of the public-financing system for presidential candidates. On a practical level, it wasn’t surprising: The Democrat has displayed a rare ability to raise huge amounts of money from average Americans, and that would have been hindered by accepting public financing.

But reducing the influence of money in politics is central to Obama’s “Change We Can Believe In” slogan and the message of his presidential campaign. It’s true that his campaign has found a different way to raise money, but the reality is that he pledged to use the public financing system in the general election if his opponent also agreed -- which McCain has done.

Now Obama, the candidate who asks Americans to be idealists and believe change is possible, is instead acting like a realist by deciding to break a promise because doing so will increase his chances of being elected.

McCain used public financing to keep his presidential campaign alive during the early days of the primary but, by the time he became the presumptive Republican nominee, he opted out because he didn’t want his fundraising to be limited.

McCain took out a pair of $1 million loans for his campaign in its early days, using public financing as collateral, according to the Washington Post. When McCain later opted out, the head of the Federal Election Commission said he can’t do that if he used public funds to back up the line of credit.

The FEC’s governing board lacks a quorum because appointments are bogged down in partisan bickering, so it has no ability to act, and the question about whether McCain violated federal regulations lingers.

Acting like Washington politicians

The reality is that both candidates -- men who claim to break the Washington mold -- made pledges to use public financing and then reneged. They’re flippantly treating as a convenience a serious and important system that is supposed to help take the money out of politics. In doing so, they’re acting like the sort of Washington politicians Americans loathe.

McCain used the public-financing system when he needed it to jumpstart his campaign and rejected it when that was no longer necessary. In the meantime, his campaign took a huge amount of money from the very Washington lobbyists the system is designed to marginalize. Now that McCain is again facing a better-funded opponent, he’s returning to the public-financing system.

Obama said he would use the public-financing system when he needed to appeal to the progressive wing of his party that wants ethics reform. Meanwhile, he was planning a revolutionary attempt to raise a huge amount of money from average people. When that worked, and public financing became a hindrance, Obama also rejected the system.

McCain’s back-and-forth use of public financing and lobbyist money is simply hypocritical. Obama’s decision isn’t much better: He appears to be fine with an ungodly amount of money in politics as long as the money is raised from average Americans and given to his campaign.

As long as he can out-raise McCain, Obama can afford to limit substantive debates and joint town halls and instead reach voters through carefully-crafted advertisements and controlled events. The problem is that running a high-dollar campaign that woos voters with spin instead of substantive debate is counter to Obama’s message of empowering people, regardless of who’s funding his campaign.