What was Dean's public funding thing really about

I am still young and foolish, and as such, despite reading an article am not entirely sure about what Dean's decision meant. Please help an ignoramus.

Thanks.
peace

Dean has changed his mind about a lot of things between his time as Governor and his time as Democratic candidate.

I think this is a carefully designed strategy to make changing your mind look like being democratic.

I prefer that Dean continually assess the situation and respond to events and a changing situation. Btw, he still looks pretty democratic to me.

Peace.

But so did campaign finance reform when he said it was so important.

I always felt the current laws were fairly anti-democratic.

Why does the government restrict how I spend my money? If a candidate has reached his/her limit, I am prevented from adding my $.02 to the campaign.

Until we have true public financing of elections candidates need to do whatever it takes to win. Principle doesn't pay the bills.

who will never change their minds to better accomodate faccts as they become known.

Kinda like the Simian. Another dumb-ass idealogue.

Julie

200 million vs. max. of 45 million is not a fair playing field.

Their big donors ( the elite :).. ) have already shot their $2000.00 dollar wads.

We "little people" have more to give in small increments and we will defeat the cabal.

AP...arrogant poster.

This isn't about me.

I think you're right. But if it works, what the hell.

is what you sound like when you're old and cynical (not that I disagree.)

NOT changing your mind even when it is smart, pragmatic and timely to do so?

How republican of you.

Dean knew he was running against 'Deep Pockets Kerry' and realized that if Kerry opted out early on, he wouldn't stand a chance. He said he was going to make campaign financing an issue.

Little did he know that his fundraising would be more effective than Kerry's putting him in a position that if he opted out he'd be leaving money on the table.

I don't like idiots. If Dean held to a foolish consistency on this point he wouldn't be allowing the full potential of his campaign to go against Bush's full potential. That is all that matters. Remember, at the end of the day, if Bush is in office, the Democrats have lost.

'We The People' decide whether he'd take matching funds or opt out. I voted for him to opt out, and I pledged more money so he would not have to go with matching funds.

It's about getting as many as 'We The People' as possible to give small donations--spreading out and cementing his support far and wide as opposed to getting the max from a small group of special interests that he will then owe favors to. I've already posted these same sentiments in another thread, but this is about the gist of it.

On edit: I may be ignorant on this, but I've always thought the reason for campaign finance reform was to stop exactly what we see happening with the Bush campaign--corporations buying office. If millions of average, and if I have myself to go on, poor Americans give small donations, how is this a problem? It isn't the same, but unfortunately, some people are going to close their minds and only look at the amount of money taken in, and blind themselves to just who is donating this money. Once again, this is not a 'black or white' issue, and it looks like many Americans have limited themselves to 'black or white', simplistic thinking. Let's face it, life is a little more complex than this.

Now that Dean (technically, Deaniacs) made the decision to not take govt. money, there is no limit to how much he can raise and spend.

Just think of govt. money having strings attached. If a Presidential candidate takes it, then she/he will only be able to spend I think $45 million.

bush in 2000 opted to not take federal money and he won't in 2004 either. For this upcoming election, with no Republican challenging him, bush has already raised $85,198,611 and it's not even the primaries yet. Expect him to raise well over $200million+. Now compare this amount with a Democratic challanger only able to spend $45 million because she/he took federal money...not exactly a fair playing field.

Buying office. The more one spends, the more likely that person is to get elected. This is not right, but realistically and sadly true. Again, if it is the people who are funding a campaign, this may not be so much of an issue, but if only a small percentage of elites are funding a campaign, then most of the people are left out. I repeat myself to make a point--caps are a good thing, but not if your opponenet is going to be able to spend 3 or 4 times more than you to get his propoganda out there. If most people were immune to propoganda, perhaps Dean could make his point with only $45 million, but the fact is, most Americans are easily swayed and are going to buy the most prominent message out there.

should have the option of opting out. I think they should all be capped. It's the only way to make a truly fair playing field. But that's just me, a fair minded democrat who's tired of $$ deciding everything in this country.

My grandfather once told me its all about green. I agree with your point 100%. I hate having money decide everything.

Money overrides ethics, intelligence, and open honest discussion in this country. The 2000 elections proved that pretty clearly.

Whoever the Dem candidate is will have to go up against the huge Bush War Chest.

I'm all for public financing but only if both sides do it. Why play the game with one hand tied behind your back.

MzPip
:dem:

for the rest of the candidates. All candidates should be forced to run a campaign with caps. Last election it was $200mill and a Floridia coup. I can't even imagine what the price will be this time around.

he or she will have spent all available money just to get the nomination. Bush & Co will have millions and millions of dollars to spend the spring and summer (prior to the convention) to demonize the nominee, the Democratic Party, indeed anyone who oppose the re-selection of Bush.

Keep in mind that Bush was NOT elected in a fair and free election. There was a coup in December of 2000, and people who come to power in a coup will do anything to retain power. There will not be a fair and free election on 04. At least not if the Republicans have their way.

The only distant hope Dean (or any Democrat has) of winning the 04 election is to try to meet Bush ad for ad, dollar for dollar. It's possible to do. Please don't judge Dean a hypocrite for being willing to do what it takes to win the election. And I don't mean dirty tricks. I mean spending the money necessary to counter the most evil, vicious, government this country has ever had.

where campaigns are publicly funded and CANNOT be tainted by ANY contributions, private or corporate, then it makes no sense for a candidate to hamstring him/herself if their opponent is opting out of public funding as well. Dean has proven to be a formidable fundraiser and to limit himself to campaign matching funds against Bush's 200 million dollars in crony contributions would be suicidal.