OSHKOSH — Republican Sen. John McCain admonished Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for hedging on his promise to accept public funding if he wins his party's nomination or use his prolific fundraising operation.
"I made the commitment to the American people that if I were the nominee of my party, I would accept public financing," the likely GOP presidential nominee said Friday in Oshkosh, Wis. "I expect Senator Obama to keep his word to the American people as well. This is all about a commitment that we made to the American people.
"I am going to keep my commitment," he said. "The American people have every reason to expect him to keep his commitment."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Thursday called public financing "an option that we wanted on the table," but said "there is no pledge" to take the money and the spending limitations that come with it.
Obama told reporters on Friday that it would be "presumptuous of me to say now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it."
McCain said that if Obama becomes the nominee and decides against taking public money, he might do the same.
"If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we'd have to rethink our position," McCain said. "Our whole agreement was that we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I'm told, that made that commitment."
Early in the race, Obama asked the Federal Election Commission whether he could raise general election money during 2007 but return it if he chose to accept the public funds.
Also, in response to a questionnaire in November from the Midwest Democracy Network, a group of nonpartisan government oversight groups, Obama said: "Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
McCain earlier this week turned down government matching funds for the primary to free him to spend more money as he prepares for a general election contest.
Last summer, McCain had asked to participate in the public system when his campaign, his fundraising and his poll numbers hit a low point that threatened to unravel his candidacy.
Though the FEC declared him eligible to receive $5.8 million in December, the money would not have become available until next month. By accepting the money, moreover, McCain would have been required to limit his spending for the primary to about $54 million — an amount the campaign was close to reaching now.
By not taking the money, McCain is free to raise more and to promote his presidential candidacy until the Republican nominating convention in September.
McCain would be the obvious beneficiary if he and Obama take the federal money for the general election because they would have to return money already collected. Obama has raised $6.1 million for the general, nearly three times as much as McCain's $2.2 million.
If the candidates reject public funds it would be historic rejection of the public financing system. No major party candidate rejected public funds for the general election since the system was put in place in the 1970s after the Watergate scandal.
Candidates who accept public funding are eligible for about $85 million, which is paid for by a $3 checkoff on IRS tax return forms.
McCain, who has all but sealed the GOP nomination, has focused much of his criticism on his Democratic rivals — Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. As Obama has gained the momentum, he has drawn a greater proportion of McCain's wrath.
Earlier this week, McCain suggested Obama has been lacking in providing policy details. "I've not observed every speech he's given, obviously, but they are singularly lacking in specifics," McCain said.
Campaigning in LaCrosse, Wis., McCain said he would propose a balanced budget in his first term if he is elected president — but not necessarily in his first year.
"I've got to give you some straight talk: I doubt, given the deficits we're running, that I can propose a balanced budget in the first year," McCain told a town hall meeting. "But that's my goal. It has to be our goal, because we're mortgaging these young people's future."
McCain said he would propose a balanced budget by the end of his first term if elected.
"If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we'd have to rethink our position," McCain said. "Our whole agreement was that we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I'm told, that made that commitment."
That's a silly statement, because it is exactly the position Obama is taking. McCain's hedging because Obama's hedging because MCain might...
I'm getting dizzy.
What McCain is basically saying is that even though he's made a commitment to the American people, he could go back on it if Obama does.
Because that's what a commitment is--contingent upon how others treat it.
/sarcasm
Do the American people really give a damn where the money comes from? Does McCain really think that taking a stance on "accepting public funds" will make him stand out to the majority of people?
yes
It doesn't sound like Obama made a commitment on this issue, only McCain did, as he self professed. So, if Obama decides not to accept public funding, and McCain also does not accept public funding (which would be a mistake on his part, because there's no way in hell he could out raise Barack), then it will just be McCain who is actually breaking a commitment that he made. McCain is not clever enough to pull off this kind of spin.
Barack is going to kill him in the debates.
He is just jealous (and afraid) of Obama's ability to raise money.
Honestly, I'd rather Obama get people other than us to pay for his election. McCain as well.
In a perfect world, neither of them would be allowed to spend any money on getting elected, and our opinions on a given candidate would be informed solely by our own research and publicly funded debates.
I had no idea that so much public money is wasted on elections.
better than gettign their ads paid for by the telcoms which means for 4 years they wont sign any bill that harms them.
I'm starting to think that the amount of money spent on the election of the most powerful leader on the planet is a red herring. A single Boeing 787 costs $150-200 million dollars. Is not the democratic selection of the U.S. president worth at least that much?
North Americans have spent $3.5 billion USD on Xbox hardware, software, and accessories – which is $1 billion USD more than consumers spent on the Wii, and $2 billion USD more than the PlayStation 3.
It costs money to travel all over the country, buying airtime to express your message, etc. I'm not sure that it's right to limit candidates to debates as the only way for voters to get to know them. It's kind of like testing in schools -- some smart kids are just not good at tests. I'm not sure scoring points in a public debate necessarily equates to a better president, though I will agree that it is a whole lot more meaningful than professionally produced television ads.
What really matters is where that money comes from. If it's small amounts from the voting public, I'm not sure that's a problem. If it's large amounts from narrow subsets of the population or special interests, then it certainly is one.
Now, if you want to argue that we should stop buying game systems (I don't have one), or stop building passenger jets, well, that's a whole other discussion...
I think it is a bit late to have a publically funded election after the primaries, as most of these people have been bought and well paid for by then,
public funding allows the regular joe to get as much voice as say the walmart heirs.
public funding keeps the criminals from buying ellections/pardons/tax favors/w/e
public funding keeps our presidecy from becoming an arostocracy.
public funding keeps it from costing 1 billion to win the presidency all in tv ad's
public funding would allow broke candidates to respond to swiftboating.
There are very few people who dont think the money in washington is the problem..well except maybe the two posters above.
our elections effect everyone
our elections are a part oif the constituion and hense the US gov
and as such, should be funded from the general fund.
Obama never promised to take public funding... McCain did. This is McCain's lead-footed attempt at getting out of his own promise and making Obama look like he is at fault for McCain's own disingenuosness. The man should indulge in some more "straight talk" and just admit he was saying anything and everything to revive his campaign and didn't intend to follow through on the public financing promise.
"Mr. McCain's advisers said that the candidate, despite his signature legislative efforts to restrict the money spent on political campaigns, would not accept public financing and spending limits for this year's general campaign." nytimes com 2008 02 13 us politics 13mccain
"McCain campaign's latest stand on the issue" is that it will accept public funding if McCain's Democratic opponent does the same (nytimes com 2008 02 15 us politics 15finance )
"On Tuesday, one of Mr. McCain's advisers told The New York Times that the campaign had decided to forgo public financing in the general election…." (nytimes com 2008 02 15 us politics 15finance )
Looks like Mr McCain blinked.
Perhaps his eyes are still closed. ;-)
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |