Traditionally, when someone takes the presidential nomination, the national party apparatus becomes theirs. So, from an inside baseball perspective, it’s interesting to see what moves a presumptive nominee makes, particularly right out of the gate. The first major change from Obama was announced today, and it will be interesting to see whether John McCain (with his history in regard to campaign finance) makes a similar move. This is from the NY Times Caucus blog:
Senator Barack Obama, as he becomes his party’s presumptive presidential nominee, is starting to exert his authority over the Democratic National Committee. A first step? New fund-raising guidelines.
Mr. Obama announced today that the D.N.C. will no longer accept contributions from federal lobbyists or political action committees, which follows the rules he established for his own campaign last year.
‘I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs and today,’ Mr. Obama told an audience in Bristol, Va. ‘I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party.’
He added: ‘We’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different.’
‘We want the Democratic Party to conform to his standards of openness to reduce the influence of special interests,’ Linda Douglass, a campaign spokeswoman, told reporters today before Mr. Obama flew from New York City for a campaign stop in Virginia.
H/t to Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings, one of my favorite political blogs.
I flat love it. What better possible way to start gradually but inexorably cleaning out the stableful of hacks (looking at you, Beel Nelson) and give excellent proof that, as I said, the Clinton era is over?
Heh. Who was really “Ready on Day One”?
Wow! How you gonna get all them cow back in the barn once that door is closed?!
I know lets give back all of the PAC and umm Special Intrest monies received over the last 6 or 12 months. Lets ask all those special intrest,,, err I mean education 501C3s to not run any more disingenuous adds (I’m looking at you George Soros / Move on).
Then again I guess he could have sponsored legislation to reform this sort of as a Senator…….Naahhhh! Reckin change means doing something different than you have in the past?!
Legislation to limit contributions seems to have a low level of success in the long run due to free speach concerns. I think the impetus has to come from those that are the recipients of the money and this could be a good step. Those outside groups such as Soros and the Shifty boat guys are another story entirely and noone is likley to shut them down.
NL
for now Anon coward has left the stage.
I really like the sound of this. But, I confess, I need to know a few more specifics before I proclaim this move as good as it appears on the surface.
By eliminating PAC money, does this remove the MoveOn.Org and other such G. Soros funded organizations from the landscape of money coming into the campaign. (Note: not really singling out these organizations, just using them as a well known example to ask a specific question). If so, then I think this is great.
Like the other commenter, it would be even better if it included a return of previous monies from such organizations, and if it would be a permanent campaign policy shift.
And yes, I would like to see McCain follow suit, which he very well might do.
I don’t want to infringe on folks’ first amendment right to contribute to political campaigns of their choosing. So, I am not a big advocate of monetary limits on individuals. What I do want to see is absolute transparency — in other words, no significant anonymous contributions. Let the people know where the money came from , who gave it, and let them draw their own conclusions about it. And that, IMO, is the problem with all the PAC and lobbying money — not enough transparency. Its like a shell game. Let the sunshine in.
I think the answer about MoveOn (or, on the other side, Freedom Watch) is that, no, those organizations won’t be affected at all. And in fact can’t be– if they aren’t independent, they’re illegal. I don’t know if/how there could be any kind of declared truce. Some would refuse on principle, I assume.
Oh well, it was a nice thought. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.