More Campaign Finance News: Obama Now Courting Big Money Donors

NPR reported this morning that after their joint "unity" campaign stop tomorrow, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will hold a private meeting with Clinton's top fundraisers for a twofold purpose: (1) to help HRC settle her $10 million campaign debt to vendors and (2) to see what they can do to help the Obama campaign.

This comes just one week after announcing that "the public financing of Presidential elections as it exits today is broken," and urging his supporters to "declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far."

So why is he now courting Clinton's big money donors?

NPR points out:

Obama's monthly fundraising totals peaked in February. They've been steadily falling since then, as the campaign relies more on small online contributions. May was his weakest month of 2008.

and, more ominously:

John McCain has been raising money almost nonstop. On May 31, he was just $11.5 million behind Obama. It's the closest gap they've had so far.

These are disturbing developments to those of us who rejoiced in the fact that Barack Obama was running a campaign that was immune to the influence of big money donors, and you can be sure that the GOP will exploit this to the fullest extent.

But Obama has been described as a pragmatist. Like all progressives, he remembers how successfully Karl Rove's disciples managed to turn war hero John Kerry into a coward in the eyes of the electorate. His campaign finance announcement last week acknowledged that fighting the inevitable attacks will take a lot of resources.

But he also urged his supporters to "build the first general election campaign that’s truly funded by the American people."

Over the last eight years, I've seen our country subjected to so many Bush Administration crimes that I feel almost numbed: a "war on terrorists" that has made us less safe... the adoption of torture as standard operating procedure... illegal "rendering" of terror suspects overseas (without hard evidence of terrorist activities)... illegal wiretaps of US citizens...  politicization of a number of Federal agencies that are supposed to protect our citizens but instead protect the interest of big business (the Department of Justice, OSHA, FEMA, the EPA, etc.)... the widening gap between our country's "haves" and "have nots" and the middle class squeeze... the decision to cut health care benefits for low income children... "No Child Left Behind"...

Well, you get the picture. It's a list that gets longer every week, as new information comes to light. And it reminds me of how badly we need a change of leadership - in both the government's executive and the legislative branches.

Barack Obama appealed to the idealist that still lives inside me, but I recognize that idealism alone does not get a President elected. Winning elections in this country takes a certain amount of ruthlessness - as does governing.

I should not be that surprised by this sudden shift in campaign tactics, and it's possible that I shouldn't feel alarmed. Now that the campaign is gearing up for November, the rhetoric from both sides is shifting towards the center -- which is to be expected.

There are still stark differences between the policy positions of Barack Obama and John McCain. Will big money change Obama's positions on health care, the environment, education, energy, taxes and national defense?

The pragmatist in me says it might.

But my inner idealist wants to keep the faith. And that's what I'm going to do. After all, the alternative would be to just accept more of the same shit we've endured the last eight years, and I don't have the heart to do that.

Donna Schwartz Mills can usually be found keeping the faith on her personal blog, SoCal Mom.

Comments

[PunditMom]

That's the danger of coming across too much as a candidate of hope and change. There's too much about the system as it exists that would make it too difficult to win if one stuck to those guns.

[cynematic]

Don't forget, money going to the nominee now is (hopefully) going to lift the tide for down-ticket Dems when Obama campaigns in state races too. 50-state strategy, remember? "More and better" Dems is gonna be what makes real change possible.

[John J.]

The other thing to remember is that he has always taken large money donations and accepted donations via "bundlers". He does have rules for that though - specifically no PACs and no lobbying funds. Since he has rolled those rules out to the DNC at large, I don't expect it to change any time soon.

I too am wary, and completely support keeping a watchful eye and making sure his feet are held to the fire, but I don't think this quite qualifies as leaving the idealism behind (or at least not leaving any new idealism).

[deb]

great post, Donna. really kick-ass. and it helps quell my own nervous nelly.

[D]

As someone who works as a non-profit fundraiser, I would like to offer the idea that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with money, even in large amounts. I recognize why people get wary of large donors, thinking they have sway and influence that those of us without large sums of money to donate don't. And this can be true. But it is not automatically true. A large contribution, and the donor who gives it, is not inherently bad.

I think whether the money and the donor is given too much influence depends a lot on the recipient and his/her ethics. And in this case, we just have to trust Obama in that regard.