https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_election_campaign_fund_checkoff
The section under Primary election (approximately 2/3 down the page) provides the following information:
In 2008, many of the top candidates chose not to accept the primary matching funds. Tom Tancredo,[3] John Edwards,[4] Chris Dodd,[5] Joe Biden,[6] Dennis Kucinich,[7] and Duncan Hunter[8] qualified for and elected to take public funds in the primary. John McCain qualified[9] for public funds in the primary, but later decided to reject them.[10] Barack Obama declined public funds for both the primary and the November election. Ironically, McCain later accepted public funds for the November election, prompting an October 2008 article on NPR in which both candidates were scorned. "Sen. John McCain, one of the most vocal proponents of campaign finance reform, is being hoisted by his own petard by choosing to accept federal funding for his general election campaign. Meanwhile, Sen. Barack Obama, the choice of the Democratic Party — the very party that cried out for finance reform in the wake of the Watergate scandal — has chosen to bypass public funds." Other major candidates have eschewed the low amount of spending permitted and have chosen not to participate.
Given what has occurred with the landmark Citizens United Supreme Court decision (noted in earlier blog), I was surprised this was not noted. Therefore, this section was yearning for an update so I decided to make a short addition to this Wikipedia entry. Below is my contribution to the Widipedia page:
The first crack in the public financing system began in 1999-2000, when then candidate, George W bush opted of public financing in the primaries. That crack was shattered when Barrack Obama opted out of both primary and general election public financing
Why are these candidate opting out? Simply because there is more money to made (and matched) by opting out. With the limits/caps in public financing, it simply makes no sense to apply for matching funds, when you can raise much, much more of their own
In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court allowed unions, corporations and nonprofit organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of or opposition to a candidate. Groups were freed to say pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want about candidates and to do so with unlimited sums of money bankrolling their expenditures.
Thus, if you can raise unlimited funds, why bother with public financing?
As you can see, I added some of the recent changes from fund raising that has significantly altered fund raising and how the general public's influence is diminishing.
