3 ms·

Seriously? No mention of how Barack Obama rejected public funding in 2008 and singlehandedly opened the floodgates on campaign spending? [1] The fact that this

Seriously? No mention of how Barack Obama rejected public funding in 2008 and singlehandedly opened the floodgates on campaign spending? [1] The fact that this isn't directly mentioned anywhere in the article speaks to how far the credibility of the NYT has fallen. [2] [1]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95957148 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9595714... [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.htm... ---- edit: for a visual on how unprecedented his 2008 spending was, see charts here: http://metrocosm.com/2016-election-spending/ http://metrocosm.com/2016-election-spending/ Note the stability in spending starting in 1976 when public funding was introduced.

kevin_b_er 9y ago
Because he wasn't the first: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/16/us/bush-forgoes-federal-funds-and-has-no-spending-limit.html http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/16/us/bush-forgoes-federal-fu...
- nickysielicki 9y ago
  That's just talking about funding for primaries, and Bush wasn't the first in that regard. Barack Obama was the first candidate to reject public funding for the general election, and the spending limits that come with it, since the program was introduced in 1976. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Public_financing_of_presidential_campaigns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United...
rconti 9y ago
It's certainly relevant, but Citizens United was the only specific causal event mentioned here; I don't see how you leap from "This would have been very useful information" to "definitive proof that the NYT's credibility has fallen".