NYT: Bring It On (a defense of Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system )

[Pirate Smile]

Bring It On

By Francis Wilkinson

Campaigns generate headlines with the tough decisions they make. On Thursday, Barack Obama’s campaign made waves with an easy one. Mr. Obama’s decision to leave the public financing system elicited the predictable outrage among reformers (and the McCain camp), but it was probably the most obvious and inevitable decision he’ll make all year — justified both politically and ethically.
By freeing his campaign from the public system, Mr. Obama can continue to raise donations from his vast base of supporters, who have made his campaign thus far the best-financed in history. Mr. Obama is rightly counting on them to raise far more than the $84 million in public funds he could expect to receive from public financing.

Some observers make the case that money is less important at the presidential level because the press plays such a significant role in communicating the campaign narrative. But money still counts for much and a financial advantage is vital to a candidate who expects to come under heavy attack. In 2004, conservative groups ran negative ads against Senator John Kerry and inflicted substantial, arguably fatal, damage to his presidential campaign, giving us the verb “to swift boat” as a linguistic bonus. While no similar ad campaign is yet under way against Mr. Obama, the chances that he will skate to November without sustaining a barrage seem slim.
For Mr. Obama, who is still not well known by much of the electorate, a surplus of money will enable him to respond to negative attacks — possibly with overwhelming force — while maintaining a heavy positive advertising track to help voters get to know him. In addition, he can continue to pour money into organizing grass-roots efforts in dozens of states and contesting even traditional Republican states on the air and on the ground. In short, the more money he’s got, the more he is master of his own fate.

-snip-
Ever since Watergate, the ideal of campaign finance reform has been to replace a system fueled by special interests and big money with either full public financing or a system of civic-minded small donors. The former is abhorred by much of the public while the latter looks remarkably like barackobama.com. In effect, the Obama campaign has come closer to achieving the ideals of campaign finance reform than 30-plus years of regulation. To condemn the campaign’s departure from the system is to elevate rules over the principle that gave birth to the rules in the first place.

If reformers make Mr. Obama out to be the bad guy, that may be fine by him. Despite what we have witnessed with our own eyes, some people remain under the illusion that Mr. Obama is soft. (Apparently they missed the part where, two years into his first term in the Senate, he ran for president against the most powerful political machine in America and steadily ground it down.) Mr. Obama’s willingness to snub reformers isn’t exactly akin to taming a lion or wrestling an alligator. But more than four months before the election, even beating up on a toothless bunny might send a message.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/bring-it-on/

[pinto]

1. The Times makes some good points in this piece.

:thumbsup:

Thanks for the snag.