Letter to Myself

Stoner: in your previous post, "Obama Disappoints",
"It" (I fixed the paren's today), as in "it isn't perfect", is the Federal Presidential Election campaign fund, a much-abused reform of the '70's which seems to have outlived its usefulness.

Revising the financing of Federal elections, starting with the Presidential, remains a key concern, regardless of the lack of public insistence.

Obama's choice of position on this one means that the Republicans can abuse him for declining funding, and at the same time take exclusive advantage of the public pool. Democrats will only pay for, not receive any assistance from, the "Fed funds" in the 2008 general election. Tactically, it's unfavorable.

Strategically, we start from a recognition that Obama will get more for his general election campaign by giving up the funding. But, will money from donors that would otherwise go to building up support for other elections be channeled into Obama's domain? I'm sure he likes that, and he showed in 2006 (Hopefund) that he can be trusted to help out in a strategically and tactically sound fashion. The resulting shift in control to him, though, is bound to mean in the end that the marginal funds will go into yet more Obama ads aired in swing states, as opposed to direct assistance in the effort to help him win the landslide he will need to govern. As such, strategically, it shows weakness.

Idealistically, it's bruising. It's a little selfish, in a practical, "if I'm not for myself, who will be?" kind of way. OK, he's not running for Messiah. I think he has decided that it's time for some of his followers to take some medicine. I can understand that, and now is the time to give it to us.

Ultimately the value of the decision comes down mostly to the resulting size of the total pot for Democratic candidates (including Obama). If his direct ability to appeal to contributors (seemingly untarnished, but we'll see about that) gives such an extra boost that it dominates the choice of more, local, focused, direct appeals by candidates in strategic Congressional contests, then the decision can still be a winner.

As for me and my money, I still don't like it. He's recognized the obvious--that he will continue to rake in enormous money this year. Does that make me want to give more specifically to him? I'd say not: I've been telling the centralized Congressional Committees that I want to give it here, at Ground Zero, in New Mexico (still true, though I've relented a little--subject of one or more future posts). I think that applies just as much to Obama's campaign, in a broad sense.

In a narrow sense, though, this is pure heresy. Our job as local organizers is to get the money, here, where we need it, for our defense. Raising money locally, for local organizers (or high-quality, economically-priced, imported Obama campaign ones), is huge. So, I have to keep those thoughts to myself if I want to work around here again. (a separate issue)