I'm an idiot. Can someone explain why it's 'wrong' for Obama to opt out of public financing?

[peoli]

I seriously dont understand what's wrong with it. In fact it seems better to me that someone isnt using taxpayer dollars to fund their campaign. So for what reason are people shitting about this?

[Waya]

1. It isn't wrong........

Repukes are just sore that McCain is stuck with 84.1 million and Obama will have three times that much, at least. Is it Obama's fault McCain sucks at fundraising?
They're bitching because they say that Obama promised to take public financing, which he didn't. He said that when the time comes him and McCain will discuss it.
Well, they didn't discuss it, but when the Repukes roll out the 527's Obama will need every damn dime of what he raises to combat the filth they will be spewing.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. The idea is public financing is no-strings attached. No "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"

Normally I am all for it, but since McCain bailed on using it I don't think Obama should have to stick with it. Disappointing, but that's the way of it.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. You're wrong about the taxpayer dollars part

Public financing (in the presidential system) costs the taxpayers less than one cent each. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the billions in taxpayer money that go to favors for big campaign contributors. That number is in the trillions if you don't count just government spending but consider laws that favor corporations over people, which are a direct result of campaign contributions.

The rest of the civilized world has public financing, spending limits, and the TV stations are required by law to give very inexpensive air time to all of the candidates. Unfortunately the Supreme Court says that the First Amendment means that money = speech and therefore it is constitutional for our elections to be bought.

Obama supports public financing in principle. But he's right that Republicans will just dump all of their money into 527's and the RNC and so the system won't do what it is intended to do.

[rurallib]

4. It is wrong because the M$M says so

and the M$M claims that Obama said he would use public financing, no ifs ands or buts. Because the M$M says so, it is so. How dare you question the M$M. The FUX police will be there soon.

[anonymous171]

5. BECAUSE NOW HE CAN FIGHT THE 527's! The media and the GOP hate that.

[backscatter712]

6. I wish the MSM would quit throwing the meme "He promised to take public financing."

Obama did no such thing. Obama promised that he would be open to negotiating a pact with McCain to accept public financing, but McCain wasn't, so no such pact was negotiated. Then McCain signed up for public financing, then changed his mind when he thought he could raise more on his own (breaking the campaign finance law that HE WROTE) then changed his mind and accepted public financing when it turned out he really can't raise decent money on his own.

So Obama's under no pact to stick to public financing, and with the huge amount of money he's raising from small donors - ordinary Americans, it's in his best interest and our best interest for him not to accept public financing and the hamstringing that comes with it.

[Midwestern Democrat]

7. I'll trust Obama's campaign on this, but there are two downsides to this:

1) It's going to suck up money that otherwise would/could have been spent on other races.

2) It probably sets an irreversible precedent for future nominees of this party. (Kerry's decision to forgo public financing in the '04 primaries undoubtedly set an irreversible precedent for this year's primaries).

Forgoing public financing is probably a necessary evil; it will probably help us win, but make no mistake - I'm not at all happy that we've come to this point.

[cloudythescribbler]

8. The NY TIMES & others portray it as -- undermining public financing, AND a flipflop

My understanding is that Obama would give up the advantages of raising money privately, especially on the internet, if McCain would do so w/the 527s, and, seeing that Obama would suffer worse from the backlash among his supporters, McCain strategically decided to balk.

Yet I don't even see that point RAISED AND CRITICIZED let alone embraced in the DEMOCRATIC MSM. I am reminded of how bogus the flipflop spin was about Kerry, and everyone, especially the Democratic media, kept silent about it until The New Republic in October.

[Life Long Dem]

9. You said it. Not me...

Are Obama supporters raising too much in funds for what Obama deserves? These are the questions on voters minds.

[graywarrior]

10. It's wrong because John McCain thinks it's "disturbing."

Right...it disturbs his dream of a 100 year war.

[WeDidIt]

11. It's wrong because it allows Obama to fund raise circles around the entire GOP

resulting in embarrassing loses from top to bottom of the ticket for said GOP.

[Orsino]

12. Money should never, ever be allowed to buy disproportionate votes...

...or disproportionate advertising for candidates. Public financing, if legislated to its logical conclusion (getting rid of those "broken" elements, for instance), will level the playing field, and let ideas speak for the candidates, and permit votes to come from voters instead of corporate interests. It guarantees a certain amount of stability for democracy, which is why Big Money and its puppets in Congress are dead set against it.

[styersc]

13. Two reasons.

1). Public funding has been a cornerstone liberal/progressive issue. Public funding give access to the "little guy". (Remember we used to support the little guy- and gal).

2). Obama said he would take public funds. (before he became the wealthiest campaign on the block and then his promise was kicked to the curb).

[AllentownJake]

14. Our entire Electoral process is stupid

The Primary process, two party system, Electoral College, States determining their own election rules, the way congressional districst are determined etc.

Public Financing is just another part of the sytem that is fundamentally flawed on so many levels that has no chance of reform in the immediate future.

[Patsy Stone]

15. Because the Republicans don't have enough money to spread lies and rumors.

And they get really cranky when they can't do that.

[anamandujano]

16. Because he made a big deal of being for it.