I don’t know about you but when I think of a successful American, I don’t see someone who is dependent on the federal government for her livelihood. THAT my friends, is slavery. Instead, I see someone who refuses government assistance because such assistance leads to both political and economic slavery. Indeed, slavery of the individual is measured by the amount she relies upon government. And, one cannot be politically free if they are economically enslaved.
The same is true with political candidates. A political candidate is a slave to the source of funds she receives. To boot, the measure of commitment to the candidate’s message—the success of the candidate’s message—must be the amount of money a candidate can privately raise. Why? It’s a lot easier to get someone to spend $100 dollars on dinner than to donate $25 to a political campaign. When folks donate, they’re really excited about someone.
In this very odd election cycle, things are upside down. The candidate I expected to take federal money for his campaign simply refuses to do so. The candidate I expected to cast it askant, has embraced an unwavering reliance on federal money rather than a faith that his fellow Americans are smart. So just who rejected the federal financing? The answer will surprise you.
In case you hadn’t heard, AP is reporting that Obama isn’t relying on federal funds but McCain is. Folks, what is going on here? Things are looking really bad for the Republican Party. Yes I know, I know. There are strings attached to federal financing of one’s campaign. But so what? What about principle? How is it that Obama has the guts not to take it but McCain doesn’t? Is McCain that deeply in trouble? If his campaign’s financing isn’t that much in trouble, then why take the federal money (aka taxpayer money)?
Please don’t take me wrong here. I am no fan of Obama and won’t be for the very reason that the man embraces a philosophy of slavery to the government, beginning with nationalization of private industry. (See the video of a very scary Obama Supporter here at The Old Right blog.) But how am I supposed to support McCain? How am I to breach the conscience that God has given me and say with my vote, “McCain is better than Obama.” Folks, I’m not so sure that McCain is.
Let me add something else. How is it that the only Republican candidate who refuses to take matching funds is Ron Paul? How is it that the Republicans can only field a single candidate—one they wish would go away—with that position?
![[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/exrate/24hr-euro-small.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
Doesn’t this also put McCain under a bunch of regulations, like limits on how much he can spend in each state?
It will be hilarious, and pleasing, if some type of campaign finance laws cause John McCain to lose. A victim of his own tyranny.
Do you really think people are dumb enough to admire Obama for not taking public funding? It’s obvious that he is getting much more than the allowed financing elsewhere. Someone who has a lot to gain from Obama’s presidency. Someone who Obama will owe “big time”
Now he doesn’t have to disclose where his funding is coming from. He wants everyone else to play by the rules, except him.
I think they’re dumb enough to admire McCain for taking the government’s campaign welfare because he can’t sell his message.
Obama’s contributions are from individual donations. If they are campaign contributions, he is limited to $2,300 per person. If someone wants to spend their wealth entirely separate from the campaign and without any direction from the campaign, the sky is the limit. After all, it’s that person’s property right to spend their money as they wish.
McCain took federal campaign welfare. Obama did not. Why did McCain do this?
Accepting government campaign financing regulates the sources of income, as well as dictates how and where it it spent. In this case, government is performing as it should, in regulating itself. I believe Obama’s “individual donations” include illegal money. For example, ACORN donating $35 million dollars to “register voters” (WSJ, July 12, 2008). This money is not directly applied to his campaign. Yet, he benefits from their efforts, and money. Which, by the way, is taxpayer money (a.k.a. my money).
He’s using the same corrupt money sources that put him where he is today. By not accepting government campaign funds, his sources can come in with few boundaries. If a donor exceeds the maximum, Barack Hussein Obama is required to return the money. But, the returns can be delayed until after November, so it has a chance to do him some good anyway.
With respect to TV ads, what about 527 groups? Surely folks like the Swift Boat Veterans could be running ads supporting McCain, to compensate for spending limits on his campaign itself.
I always check the little box on my tax return. I don’t see the federal funding as “welfare” at all. It’s about setting limits, not about faith (or lack thereof) in Americans. Isn’t the President supposed to be a servant (I wouldn’t go so far as to say, “slave”) of the people? I would much rather see intelligent, efficient handling of limited campaign funds (MEANT for that purpose) from candidates than the “spend, spend, spend” that normally goes on every election… and then spills over into government spending after the election!
Obama at first “promised” to use these funds (and the restrictions that come with it), but then backed out. I admire McCain, not because he chose to take this money, but because he kept his promise, even though it’s costing him campaign funds. He’s showing me that he is a man of his word, and that he can work efficiently with less money–and for a politician, these are GOOD things!
I think candidates SHOULD be limited in their spending rather than tied to groups and individuals who expect “favors” in return. If welfare had the same kinds of regulations, maybe there wouldn’t be so many abuses of it.
And if it is welfare… well, then… I guess I’d rather be voting for the one struggling to make ends meet on welfare than the wealthy prostitute.
Amy,
Keeping one’s promise to engage in socialism is like admiring Stalin for keeping his word in starving his people.
That you don’t see federal funding as “welfare” is troubling. The only body capable of “intelligent, efficient handling of limited campaign funds” comes from the donors–not the federal government.
Who are you or anyone else to tell me that I have to limit my spending on speech? After all, don’t I have a right to spend my money as I see fit?
A candidate is only tied to those she chooses to be tied to. And unfortunately, by voting for McCain, you’re voting for the political whore who seeks a payment in return for a pound of flesh.