Statement of Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer on Decision by Senator Obama...

Statement of Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer on Decision by Senator
Obama Not to Accept Public Financing for Presidential General Election

WASHINGTON, June 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Democracy 21 is very
disappointed that Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has decided not to accept public
financing for his presidential general election campaign.

We had hoped and expected that Senator Obama would stick with the public
pledge he made to accept public financing and spending limits for the
presidential general election, if he was nominated, and if his Republican
opponent also agreed to accept public financing and spending limits for the
general election. These conditions have been met.

We do not agree with Senator Obama's rationale for opting out of the system.
Senator Obama knew the circumstances surrounding the presidential general
election when he made his public pledge to use the system.

With his decision, Senator Obama will become the first major party
presidential nominee to reject public financing for his general election
campaign, since the public financing system was established in 1974.

Senator Obama's decision to opt out of the general election public financing
system makes it all the more important for Senator Obama to personally make
clear to the public in no uncertain terms that if he is elected, one of the
early priorities for his Administration will be enacting legislation to repair
the presidential public financing system.

In the current Congress, Senator Obama is one of the three lead Senate
sponsors of the Presidential Funding Act of 2007 (S.2412), legislation to fix
the presidential public financing system, particularly the system for
presidential primaries. The other lead Senate sponsors of this bipartisan
legislation are Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Susan Collins (R-ME).

Revitalizing the presidential public financing system is essential to
protecting the integrity and credibility of the presidency and the interests
of citizens in fair government decisions.

Public Financing of Presidential Elections
The presidential public financing system has served the nation well for most
of its thirty-four year existence. The system has been described by campaign
finance scholar Tony Corrado as "the most innovative change in federal
campaign finance law in American history."

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne has written about the system:

"Opponents of campaign finance reform love to claim that the money-in-politics
problem is insoluble. But the public financing of presidential campaigns,
instituted in response to the Watergate scandals of the early 1970s, was that
rare reform that accomplished exactly what it was supposed to achieve."

"Reform Worth Rescuing"
Columnist E.J. Dionne
The Washington Post, August 18, 2006

In recent years, however, the public financing system for the presidential
primaries has broken down, in good part because the overall spending limit for
the presidential primaries has not kept pace with the costs of a modern
presidential primary campaign.

The same problems, however, do not exist with the public financing system in
the general election. In 2008, a major party nominee opting into the system
would receive an $85 million grant and could control another $20 million in
party spending, for a total of $105 million in expenditures for just a
nine-week general election campaign.

In the 2008 presidential primaries, Senator Obama made an extraordinary and
unprecedented breakthrough in raising small contributions on the Internet.

The Obama Internet fundraising success, however, was the exception, not the
rule, in the 2008 presidential primaries.

Larger contributions of $1,000 or more provided the major source of funding
for most of the other major presidential primary candidates who ran in 2008,
according to the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI).

During 2007, furthermore, when Senator Obama was raising the money critical to
his ability to compete as a serious presidential candidate in 2008, he raised
54 percent, or $52 million, of his total individual contributions for the
primaries in larger donations of $1,000 or more, according to CFI.

Bundlers, furthermore, played a key role in raising the larger donations for
the 2008 presidential candidates in both parties.

The presidential public financing reform legislation pending in the Senate
(S. 2412) and sponsored by Senators Feingold, Obama and Collins provides for a
major innovation in the matching funds system for presidential primary
candidates, which would recognize and encourage small donor fundraising on the
Internet.

The legislation would make available public matching funds of $4 for every $1
raised by a presidential primary candidate, up to $200 of each individual
contribution. The current presidential primary matching system provides $1 for
every $1 raised, up to $250 of each individual contribution.

The new multiple $4 for $1 matching system would open the door to Internet
small donors becoming the principal source of private funds for all future
presidential primary candidates, not just for one or two candidates.

It would create enormous new incentives for presidential candidates to focus
on raising smaller contributions on the Internet, since each contribution of
$200 would provide a presidential candidate with a total of $1,000.

The $4 for $1 matching system would achieve core democracy goals: making the
individual small donor the most important private funder of presidential
primary races; greatly diminishing the role and influence of bundlers and
larger donors; and increasing citizen participation in presidential elections.

The argument that the Obama campaign has created a parallel system of public
financing through its Internet small donor fundraising does not hold up. As
noted earlier, larger contributions and bundlers already have played an
important role in financing the Obama presidential primary campaign and may
well do so in the general election.

In any event, the success of one candidate in raising extraordinary amounts of
small contributions does not provide a new system of "public financing" for
all presidential candidates.

SOURCE Democracy 21

Kristen Hagan of Democracy 21, +1-202-429-2008, khagan@democracy21.org