Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Obama’s Limit

Of course Barack Obama wants a voluntary limit on presidential campaign spending! He’s already famous and the author of two books.

In his filing to the Federal Election Commission last week, Obama shrouded his intention to follow Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in abandoning public financing of his campaign in a humble-sounding plan to limit spending in the general election. In his filing, which the New York Times quickly hailed as “an unusual challenge to his rivals,” Obama suggested that, if nominated, he might reach an accord with the Republican nominee to return private donations and rely only on the approximately $85 million available from federal funding sources.

Don’t be fooled by such false gestures of public-spiritedness. Senators running for president—especially those who have won as much attention as Obama—always favor limits out of sheer self-interest: spending limits restrict their less well-known opponents. If Senator Obama were to become the Democratic nominee and face, say, former Governor Romney, he would begin the general election campaign with a tremendous advantage.

Prominent Senators, by virtue of their proximity to the day-to-day Washington debate, have a much easier time of developing a national identity and reputation. They are fixtures on the Sunday talk shows. They offer sound bites to the press on any current controversy. They deliver long speeches on C-SPAN whenever they like. Most ex-governors—or almost anyone else running for President—have to spend millions of dollars during the early months of the campaign just to catch up, introducing themselves to the large swath of the country that barely pays attention to the primaries. The kind of public spending limit Obama proposes tilts the odds in favor of those who already have a household name.

There is another weakness of public financing that the New York Times curiously neglects to mention: it gives much more power to the news media. In a universe of strict spending limits, candidates don’t have enough money for advertising, phone banks, and direct mail. Suddenly newspaper editors and TV producers become the arbiters of how much the public learns about the candidates—which would be just fine, one imagines, with a certain media darling from the state of Illinois.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.