There has been a lot of criticism lately of Senator Obama’s decision to forgo publicly financed funds to free himself from campaign spending limits. The McCain campaign blasted Obama, claiming the decision will have “far-reaching and extraordinary consequences that will weaken and undermine the public financing system.” This would be the first election in history, since the program began in the 1976, in which a candidate has decided not to accept said funds towards their campaign for president. But before we merit the threat facing the current program we should first ask if it serves us to support a possibly defunct system.
Legislators of the program had the right idea: limit spending and minimize the private sector’s influence on the presidency. Presidential candidates of the major parties can accept federal funds if they agree not to accept private money. The program was established shortly after Watergate to curtail excessive special interest money falling into the pockets of presidential candidates.
But the legislation failed to eliminate the influence of interest groups or reduce the cumulative cost of running a campaign. While the candidates are limited by the amount they can spend, political action groups (PACs) can campaign for a candidate (although not officially) using limited contributions from private donors and so called 527 groups (named for their tax code) can essentially accept unlimited amounts of ’soft money.’ These groups have proven incredibly influential to the publics perception of the candidates. Some, such as the 527 group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, have even been credited as single handedly sinking John Kerry’s 2004 bid for the presidency. (It is important to note that these groups are equally active to Democrats and Republicans; both have raised over 30 million dollars this year.) There is little reason to preserve what remains as an artifact of a great idea.
But even as the criticism proves unwarranted, Obama’s volte-face from his earlier pledge to accept public funds is providing fodder for the polemic pundits. In a recent speech, Senator Obama’s refuted claims of flip flopping by stating that he supports a “robust system of public finance,” a system that promotes civil efficacy and ameliorates the need for lobbyist money but that the current system is “broken.” It is safe to assume he opted for public funds because he was worried about the better organized, more experienced Republican fund-raising machine. He was concerned about then front runner Mitt Romney’s vast personal fortune. He didn’t know that several months later, he would be on the fast track to raising the most money ever in any political campaign. His reasoning, however, justified or otherwise, is academic.
Somewhere along the way, the public has been persuaded that irrational, headstrong committal should be celebrated and ‘flip flopping’ is to be scorned. Only in politics do we find ‘resolve,’ ‘vigilance,’ or ‘the sticking to one’s gut’ to be the omnipotent modus operandi. Nature favors the species who adapt. Sports teams are lauded for in-game adjustments. John Maynard Keynes said it best when he proclaimed “When my information changes, I change my opinion.” We need only to look at recent history to see that our self-assured, unyielding attitude has resulted in more problems than solutions. By taking this stance, we have adopted the underlying hubris which has us muted from admitting our mistakes and paralyzed from correcting those mistakes. Consequently, our revered, dignified nation has transformed into a country that is neither feared nor respected.
Senator Obama made a mistake by making that pledge. He is smart to adapt.
