The Public Financing Question
Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.
Obama has already answered this, but the rocks keep from the McCain campaign. A really good answer to this would point out the glass house McCain is doing his throwing from. Something like:
"Once I have secured the Democratic nomination, I will go to my Republican opponent and try to work out a deal on public financing for the general election campaign. However, I feel it wise to point out that my Republican opponent, Senator McCain, has a very complicated history when it comes to such agreements. He has used the public financing system to guarantee a loan to his campaign, putting American taxpayers on the hook should his campaign falter. Then, once he had locked down the nomination and got what he needed from the public financing system, he has chosen to withdraw and overspend, regardless of the rules.
Now, when I talked about meeting with foreign leaders without preconditions, I was told that I was naive, and that I was giving away too much. Well, if I were to unilaterally sign myself up for public financing against an opponent to whom the rules of such are to be tossed away whenever it is convenient . . . Well, then I would be just as naive as my opponent likes to claim that I am."
I will meet with Senator McCain and his representatives, but I will not just throw away our advantages against someone who has proved himself less than capable of honouring his agreements. Not here, and not on the world stage.
Elaborate as necessary.
