Can anyone explain the campaign finance hullabaloo?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

I was reading about how Obama declined public campaign funding and somehow this means he's shady. But I don't understand this at all. Can anyone explain what's going on slowly and with very small words?

[Dan.Linehan]

Public campaign financing is capped at $80m. Obama can earn much more than that from direct donations, because so many people like and support him and are willing to donate directly.

The public financing system that McCain will be using is somewhat shady because 527 groups can donate unlimited amounts with no oversight or regulation. Due to a loophole in definitions, money from 527 groups can be used for attack ads but not for support ads. If a 527 group ran a support ad for a candidate they would be supporting them and therefore subject to normal election regulation. But if they run attack ads they can justify that as advocacy.

So end of day:

McCain will get $80m in funding from 527 groups. This money will have to be used to run attack ads on Obama.

Obama knows he can make more than $80m from private donations because of his wide support base, even though private donations are capped at $2,300 per person.

McCain is calling Obama shady because Obama is not using the normal system, no other reason. In reality, the public financing system is shady because it bypasses election regulation. How is getting private donations shady? It's not.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Thanks, Dan. I knew I could count on you.

So, my confusion was not confusion at all. I couldn't understand why it would be a bad thing to get donations from people and not use the public money. So, it's just one of those "anything my opponent does is bad" things I guess.

It seems wise to go with private in order to be able to get more money than you would otherwise and use it how you see fit.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

I found this comment on a blog:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...comment-431000

That’s not hypocritical at all. It’s the same as saying one supports the democratic election of government officials, but will not participate in one that’s rigged to give one side a huge advantage. That’s exactly what the current public financial system is, rigged. It allows unscrupulus people to form 527 group and just basically spread whatever lies they can make up, and with no limit on how much money they can spend. In this kind of system, only those who are willing to lie and smear and defraud stand a chance to win. It’s a good call for Obama to not participate in such a crooked system.

From http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/15926.html

[ThoughtAddict]

The big deal is a comment Obama made before he was considering running. He stated he would take the public campaign financing if he ever ran for president, and touted public financing.

He's smart not to take it, but it does open him to attacks on credibility. Essentially, he's learning from the attacks from previous elections and favoring centralization of large amounts of money to try and deflect the attacks which will be coming in this election. It may be a sign that he's planning on running a clean campaign...

[Brutha]

So, my confusion was not confusion at all. I couldn't understand why it would be a bad thing to get donations from people and not use the public money. So, it's just one of those "anything my opponent does is bad" things I guess.

If you think that in general public money should finance elections instead of corporate interests it raises an eyebrow when someone says that he doesn't accept public money.

But as Dan layed out, there are still good reasons for Obama to reject public money in this election.