Word arrived today that Barack Obama would not be accepting public financing for his campaign. The news is far from shocking in the context of the campaign — in fact it makes sense in almost every political way — but that doesn’t change the historical fact that Obama now becomes the first candidate of a major party to reject public financing since the system was created in 1976.

As the New York Times explains:

Under the federal presidential financing system, a candidate this year would be given $84.1 million from the Treasury to finance a general election campaign. In exchange, the candidate is barred from accepting private donations, or from spending more than the $84.1 million.

McCain will accept those funds (and thus the limits imposed by them) and Obama will not. It makes sense for his campaign because Obama can easily raise more than the $84.1 million public financing would have provided, and it makes sense practically because Obama’s campaign is not accepting the lobbyist, PAC, and 527 money that will pour into McCain’s war chest. Just as importantly, as the Times notes, contribution limits to political parties — where Republicans still hold an advantage — are so convoluted that it puts the entire public financing system into question. That is exactly what Obama himself argued today saying,

The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

Click here to continue reading…

There is not another industry in the United States that has been more vilified in the past few years than the Oil Industry. To many Americans, these companies represent corporate greed and the stranglehold that “special interests” have on politics in Washington. Driven first by the populist message of John Edwards’ campaign, the Oil Industry, ExxonMobil specifically, has proven an easy and popular target for Democratic presidential hopefuls. Barack Obama often announces at large campaign stops:

I know that it won’t be easy to change our energy policy. ExxonMobil made $11 billion last quarter. They don’t want to give those profits up easily.

Hillary Clinton has been no more gentle, saying:

Now, ExxonMobil had, you know, the highest profits in corporate history. Yet when CEO Lee Raymond was asked about how much his company had invested in alternative energy over the last decade, his reply was, and I quote, “a negligible amount.” Well, that’s unexcusable. You know, the oil industry is making $300 million a day, not because they planned on it, not because of great managerial expertise, but because of escalating world demand and therefore increasing prices for this commodity that they didn’t create in the first place. I think it’s time that we made sure they put a fair share of their profits toward a sound energy future.

There is no shortage of criticism against the Oil Industry. What we don’t often hear, is a response. How does the Oil Industry justify such high profits? Given these profits, why are companies like ExxonMobil still receiving government subsidies? One of our users, who works for an oil company, forwarded me an email sent to company employees in response to these exact questions. Click here to continue reading…

One of the most interesting conversations we have going on the site so far is about creating universal health care. Here are the facts: nearly 47 million people in this country are currently uninsured; of those 47 million, more than 80% come from working families; while in 1987, 70% of people had employer-based insurance, that number is down to 59.5%; and, finally, 40% of America’s uninsured live in households that earn more than $50,000 a year. The reason for the increasing number of uninsured Americans is simple: insurance premiums are rising at just about 5 times the rate of inflation.It’s an incredibly important issue, and our users are doing a great job tackling a lot of important questions. Some of them are skeptical:

Gagarin wants to know how we would pay for a universal health care program:

UHC would be very peachy and nice, but someone has to tell me how they’re going to pay for it, WITHOUT saying they’re going to “tax the rich people ’cause they don’t need the money” because thinking that will increase revenue rather than reduce it is wishful thinking.

Lobachevsky thinks the government might be overstepping its role:

The government should be involved in situations that individuals cannot control. I do believe that the state of our current health care system is not satisfactory, and that it requires some government involvement, but not to the extent of national health care. The national government should put its time and effort, and our money, into stimulating competition in the health insurance market as to make it more affordable to all Americans.

In my opinion, universal health care is a moral imperative. While stephendolenc compares health care to “universal cell phone ownership [and] universal fitness club memberships,” I think the comparison to public education is much more apt. I don’t believe we have any more of a right to deny an American citizen the ability to be treated by a doctor than we have to deny them the services of the Fire Department should their home catch fire. Click here to continue reading…