[Plonnikas]

Sounds perfectly reasonable, actually. If someone qualifies for public campaign funding, they probably ought to be on the ballot.

[tutkarussia]

Sounds perfectly reasonable, actually. If someone qualifies for public campaign funding, they probably ought to be on the ballot.

Getting on the ballot can be an expensive process. Everyone not in the public system had to devote money and time to get the requisite signatures. McCain used the public system to get out of that.

[yPuqQ248]

Originally posted by Ramo
Sounds perfectly reasonable, actually. If someone qualifies for public campaign funding, they probably ought to be on the ballot.

Getting on the ballot can be an expensive process. Everyone not in the public system had to devote money and time to get the requisite signatures. McCain used the public system to get out of that. Shrug. So? Why should he go to all that effort to get on the ballot when there's an easier way, particularly since it's obvious he ought to be on it?

[salomal-qask]

The RNC will make the difference.

DNC has more money this election cycle, IIRC.

I don't see this a politics as usual. I guess I don't really understand what you mean by that.

He's going back on campaign pledges and acting like a regular politician instead of implying he'd be a different kind of pol.

FEC Chair says that McCain can't even withdraw from public financing without FEC approval.

Conveniently the FEC can't rule on it because of quorum problems, so the FEC wants him trapped in it. I don't think that was how it was supposed to work.

[Tic Tac Took]

Obama's public financing claim is ridiculous, but I award McCain no points for abiding by a stupid campaign financing system for which he was one of the prime drivers.

[BrodiKennedy]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The purpose of political process is to elect the most popular candidate. Popularity can be bought in all sorts of ways, you know.

[masteryxisman]

Originally posted by Ramo
Are you asking why people might consider gaining a financial advantage over your opponents by pretending to be in the public system to be unethical? The "advantage" consists of not doing something other people shouldn't have to do either. I don't see it as a big problem.

Honestly, Ramo. Forest, trees, etc. Presumably all the expense and hard work to get on the ballot is there so that only real candidates make it. Presumably those states decided "if the FEC thinks you're enough of a real candidate to qualify for public financing, we don't need you to go to all that effort to prove it to us as well". So McCain qualified for public financing and used that to get on the ballot in those states. Even if he doesn't take the public financing, he hasn't invalidated the logic of putting him on the ballot. The system is working just fine.

[bestonlinepharmasy2]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Popularity can be bought in all sorts of ways, you know. Why do you hate grassroots campaign financing?

[legal-advicer]

Yep, that's what I meant: In other words, to get on the ballot without qualifying for public financing takes a far more serious candidate than with.

[EtellaObtaite]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
To call it "paralle public financing" is a little self serving: "My doners are the public; yours are not " That's not what he said or meant. He simply has more donors.

[uncoosesoge]

No. I adopted the "serious" terminology from snoopy. The implication is the sentence that followed:
It seems likely that this was also intended specifically to help out campaigns that are publicly financed.

[Konservir]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think it makes a lot more sense than requiring millions in expenditures just to hit the ballot. Anyone who is a serious candidate should be on the ballot, any other restriction is a violation of the Constitution as far as I'm concerned. How do you measure "serious?"

[CuittisIL]

Imran, what are you whining about? Don't you realise the potential "parallel public financing system" has in capitalism vs communism debates?

[berdyanskdotsu]

Originally posted by Arrian
Without examining it in any depth, "parellel public financing system" sure sounds like doublespeak.

-Arrian Do have to agree with this too.

[MizzDaizzy]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The "advantage" consists of not doing something other people shouldn't have to do either. I don't see it as a big problem. This is also true. I don't like that Obama backed out of his public funding promise but realistically if McCain is going to illegally break the public funding spending limits then what can he do?

[FallJimerks]

Obama's spanking McCain by ridiculous margins in fundraising, so it'd be idiotic of him to go with public financing now.

I'm not looking for someone who's not "politics are usual" (that's what people who aren't the establishment candidate ALWAYS say) I'm looking for someone who won't do stupid ****. And at this point Obama going with public financing would be monumental idiocy especially with what McCain's been doing.

[carinsurancess]

Obama tied to lobbyists, but boasts of not taking money

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama often boasts he is "the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists," yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.
Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.

Thirty-one of the 38 are law firm partners, who typically receive a share of their firm's lobbying fees. At least six of them have some managerial authority over lobbyists.

"It makes no difference whether the person is a registered lobbyist or the partner of a registered lobbyist, if the person is raising money to get access or curry favor," said Michael Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a non-partisan think tank.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said that while Obama's refusal to take money from lobbyists "isn't a perfect solution or symbol, it does reflect Obama's record of trying to change the way that Washington does business." He declined to elaborate.

Lobbyists have long played key fundraising and policymaking roles for candidates, and lobbyists are raising money for both Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain.

Obama fundraisers who work for law firms that lobby and share the fees include:

•Allan Katz, a Florida lawyer who chairs the government relations practice of Akerman Senterfitt. The firm took in $3.6 million for Washington lobbying last year, according to public records compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The firm touts on its website "an enviable level of access" for clients.

•Mark Alderman, managing partner of Philadelphia's WolfBlock law firm. The firm's lobbying subsidiary earned $930,000 in Washington last year representing clients including defense contractor Lockheed Martin, records show.

•Scott Blake Harris, managing partner of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, a Washington telecommunications law firm. Harris withdrew as a lobbyist for Microsoft and Cisco in June, but his partners still lobby, he said.

"My practice isn't going to be helped by this at all," said Harris, who said he got involved with Obama after his 14-year-old son interned in the senator's office. "I went to see him because of how nice he'd been to my kid, and I was captivated by his vision."

Katz, who got to know Obama over dinner, said his lobbying business "will be fine whether he wins or whether he loses."

Alderman said he was "just blown away" after meeting Obama. "This is not a business proposition for me," he said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...#uslPageReturn

Is that what he meant by a “parallel public financing system”?