accountable |əˈkountəbəl|

adjective

1 (of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible : government must be accountable to its citizens

When Hillary Clinton visited Bosnia in 1996 the Internet was a real pile of shit. Youtube would not be created for another 9 years and the blogosphere wouldn’t become a potent political force for at least another 5. Unfortunately for Sen. Clinton, television existed; this pesky, primitive technology has all but ended her campaign (hopefully), but Clinton’s “misspeak”, long overdue for the millions of committed Hillary-bashers, has ironically created a golden opportunity for us Clinton supporters who have left her campaign to pressure Obama to make good on his promises.

Leaving the Clinton campaign provides the opportunity to put energies toward pressing the Obama camp to champion progressive policy, and holding him to the same standards of scrutiny that exist for Sen. Clinton. Clinton’s gaffe/bald-faced lie and the subsequent chastisement by the Obama camp has introduced a precedent of accountability that has hitherto been absent. If we can effectively pursue this politically neoteric idea of holding our leaders accountable for their rhetoric, we can progress as a party and as a democracy. While this “concept” of accountability is important in a general sense, I want to discuss a particular policy issue that, if shrewdly approached, will ensure a progressive triumph in November- Campaign Finance.

Campaign Finance should be at the forefront of the contest between Barack Obama and John McCain for a variety of reasons. To begin, it is an issue that both are comfortable discussing. McCain’s role in the McCain-Feingold Bill of 2002, the partially successful, bipartisan effort tackling financial ethics rules, serves as a touchstone for the campaign’s claims of commitment to ethical electioneering. Obama too, in the Illinois Senate, has a record of overhauling ethics rules to conform with his “progressive” ideals. On account of their mutual dedication to ethics reform, they collaborated on a piece of ethics legislation in the Senate in 2006 that resulted disastrously on both legislative and personal levels. Legislatively, the bill was plagued with loopholes; Feingold described it as “a lousy piece of legislation” The juicier, personal tale, is that of the soured relations between McCain and Obama while working on the bill and the highly publicized letters exchanged between the two Senators that resulted from this failed partnership. Hopefully the humor that we found in those exchanges will introduce some entertainment to the trail, of which there’s been a dearth. On a more serious note, this collaborative failure will provide the perfect setting for each candidate to out-ethicize one another, surely a first in American politics.

Despite McCain’s experience in the ethical arena, he has proven that, as with his foreign policy experience, his incompetence nullifies this experience. McCain’s entire campaign has been riddled with inconsistencies and dreadful planning, particularly regarding campaign finance. Back in late 2007 when McCain’s campaign was reeling and in debt, he took out a 4 million dollar line of credit, using federal matching funds as collateral. The lawyers who filed a lawsuit last week against McCain explain, “The law says that if you use the promise of federal matching funds as collateral for a loan, you can’t withdraw from the system — even if you never accepted the funds. So he’s not “allowed” to spend more private money, he’s breaking the law by doing so.” So, McCain is a hypocritical jackass. McCain then has the audacity to challenge Obama’s commitment to accept public financing in the general election saying, “Obama a year ago “signed a piece of paper” pledging to accept public financing if he won the nomination, while Sen. Hillary Clinton — who at the time was the Democratic front-runner — did not.”

To this challenge, I urge Sen. Obama and his supporters to answer with an enthusiastic, “Yes!” It would behoove Sen. Obama to accept this challenge for 2 reasons that I will outline here:

First, we have to hold Obama to the same standard of accountability that we’ve required of McCain and Clinton. Obama himself said, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” If we don’t hold Obama responsible for his rhetoric, then what are we basing our support of him on? It is particularly important in this case not to let this issue slip through the cracks with the rest of his empty promises. Public financing is the biggest progressive step this campaign could take, and the Republican nominee is taunting him to pursue it! Obama should call McCain’s bluff. Congress’ love affair with big corporations and interest groups coupled with last year’s Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to make campaign donations has left voluntary submission to public financing the only option we have left. Why not set a precedent for progressives and take public financing, a crucial step in transcending “politics as usual in Washington”.

Secondly, if Obama is serious about engaging the previously unengaged, public financing places a responsibility on the electorate that is generally reserved for corporations and lobbyist via $. Public financing balances interests, levels the playing field between we, the humans, and the giant corporations, and saves money. The nonpartisan research group Open Secrets explains, “The candidates for president have broken nearly all fundraising records, amassing approximately $800 million even before the two major parties choose their nominees for the November ballot.” Think of a progressive issue you care about and imagine how it could have been addressed with the money spent on the presidential primaries. Let’s step up the progressive agenda, take on McCain’s challenge, and wipe the floor with him in November in a publicly financed election.