I don't see why everyone is buying into the narrative that Barack's decision to forego public financing is breaking his solemn word to talk to the Republican nominee about it if he were to become the Democratic nominee. I don't see how his opting out is betraying the ideal of people-powered politics.
Gathering up a huge war chest of small donations has been the most significant and important aspect (besides the great speech-making) of Obama's campaign. This has been generally dismissed or barely--until now--acknowledged.
I can't believe that even the New York Times in their editorial today is so dismissive of this amazing feat and what it represents politically.
The vast numbers of small donors is political change. It demonstrates its own significance--no polls needed. It is a poll in and of itself.
Why would people be annoyed that someone who is able to connect so significantly with such a huge number of donors
(small, large, medium) is going to bank on that support? Why would anyone expect such a candidate to throw away this demonstrated broad base of support? This is exactly what the limitations on donors (now $2300 max) is supposed to do--limit the ability of wealthy donors (aka narrow base of support) to influence elections. Barack is exactly right because with the system that is in place, wealthy people who want to use their money to influence an election have many ways to do it, outside of individual donations to candidates. These limits are good because they limit rich donors, but they do not limit the actual number of donors who can give to a candidate. Yeay!!! That is a good thing. If a candidate is able to appeal to a large number of voters who have his/or her back, that is a very good thing.
The republicans complaining about what Obama is doing are probably just disappointed that their loopholes (that allow supposedly "independent" spending) will become meaningless, and perhaps a waste of money.
The system that limits the amount an individual can donate forces candidates to appeal more broadly to the public. The idea is that a candidate won't get very far if they only appeal to the rich. But as we've seen with Bush/Cheney, this has not worked because the rich have built in a work around for themselves--with independent expenditures, the rich can do what they want with their money. Great. But this reinforces their advantage against those who do not have money to hire lawyers and set up an "independent" money machine. This puts candidates who appeal to the general public, including poor people, at a severe disadvantage.
Barack is absolutely right to do this. I'm sure the wealthy and powerful will figure out a way around this for the future, but it is a tremendous thing to see a candidate with broad appeal actually getting a leg up. At least for now.
I have been a strong Hillary supporter, but I am happy to be rooting for Barack Obama now. I have been following with interest not so much the amount of money that he has raised, although that is impressive, but the number of donors he has attracted. This is the truly significant thing--and all the Republicans who are furrowing their brows right now know it.