Clinton Backs Public Funds for Campaigns

[Herman Munster]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O8L8H81&show_article=1

ELIZABETH, N.J. (AP) - A day after her campaign announced a record breaking fundraising haul, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would support public funding of campaigns if elected president next year.
At an event where she picked up the endorsement of New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, Clinton said she would continue the fundraising pace that helped bring in $26 million for her presidential bid in the first three months of 2007. But, she said, she hoped a different system could one day be enacted.

"I believe we have to move, eventually in our country, toward a system of public financing that really works for candidates running for federal office. I will support that as president," she said.

Clinton's campaign was the first to completely opt out of the public funding system that has existed for more than 30 years. Her advisers believe she can raise more money on her own than she would have been eligible to receive under the existing system.

[shadowknows69]

1. I'm speechless

what do you say, really?

[Blue_In_AK]

2. I agree.

[Wetzelbill]

3. I think her statement was drowned out by the "cha-ching" sound

:)

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Why?

She knows that she'd be wildly outspent by Republicans if she took public financing now. That doesn't mean she's against the idea of public financing - just that the current system would fuck her over if she went with it.

I see nothing unusual about her stance.

[obamian]

10. Obama's stance actually has some substance to it

If his Republican opponent agrees (McCain already has), Obama will use public financing. How come Hillary didn't do that?

[AlGore-08.com]

12. In 2000, Gore accepted spending limits, Smirk rejected them

Smirk out raised and outspent Gore by almost 2-1. Gore ended up with 1/2 million more votes than Smirk.

Between 1974 to 1996, both Dem and Republican Presidential candidates accepted voluntary spending limits.

There is not a 1:1 relationship between having the most money and winning the election.

Candidates don't "have" to reject spending limits any more than elected representatives "have" to vote in ways that enrich their major donors.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. And you may have noticed

Gore didn't become President. Perhaps more money would've won him Tennessee, or made the margin in Florida big enough they couldn't steal it.

I think it's stupid to not play the game with the full intent to win out of some misguided sense of propriety.

[obamian]

14. Still...

Why not play the game on an even court? If both candidates can agree, then why not accept public financing? If Hillary is elected, she inevitably will be influenced by her donors more by forgoing public financing, than if she decided to use public financing in the general.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. oh, I don't disagree

that it would be preferable for both candidates to accept equal amounts. I don't think Clinton has ruled it out.

But I don't think the Republican candidate will accept it.

[Colobo]

6. I can only laugh...

[babylonsister]

4. I "so" don' t like her. So! So! So! think she's yucky. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Me too

I can vote for her over a republican but I am reeeeely praying she does not get the nomination.

[Wilms]

8. Did she mean to add, "...for the little people"? n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

9. She is for the public funding after she was against it for herself. uh-huh

[Colobo]

11. Sounds like a Republican family value...