Dean and Kerry Opting Out, Clark Opting In For Public Financing

Kerry Joins Dean in Not Taking U.S. Public Funds

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry said on Friday he would forgo public financing for the 2004 primaries, allowing him to tap into personal assets and spend an unlimited amount on his campaign for the White House.

"Governor Dean changed the rules of the race and anyone with a real shot at the nomination is going to have to play by those rules," Kerry said. "I am fortunate to be able to contribute some personal assets."

President Bush, who has already opted out of the public financing system, has passed the $100 million mark on his way to a record-breaking goal of $170 million.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&e=1&u=/nm/politics_kerry_dc

<>

Wesley Clark Will Accept Public Financing

WASHINGTON - Wesley Clark, the latest entrant into the Democratic presidential race, has decided to give his campaign a cash infusion by accepting public financing for the primaries.

The decision announced Thursday means Clark will be limited to $45 million in overall primary spending and face state-by-state spending caps. He will be eligible for up to about $19 million in government funding, money that would have been hard to make up given his late fund-raising start.

(His projected fund-raising) would have him finishing the year with less than half the amount that money front-runners Dean and Kerry have raised. Dean collected $25 million through September, according to the most recent figures available, while Kerry raised $20 million.

If Clark becomes the Democratic nominee, however, there is a risk he will be near the spending limit as President Bush, with no primary opponent, has millions left to spend next spring and summer, before the general election season starts.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=5&u=/ap/20031114/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_money_3

<>

Note: All other candidates have committed to public financing.

for opting out of a toothless, pointless campaign finance system when they are faced with an opponent who does the same. Until we reach a point in this country (and I'm not optimistic) where ALL donations are illegal and campaigns are ALL publicly financed then there is no way we can compete with the Republicans when we're hamstrung by matching fund limitations.

earlier this year?

I mean, didn't he make a big point of it and all?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When faced with the onslaught of funds raised by the other candidates, how does he expect to compete?

in his abilities to over come the financial disadvantage.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

hasn't even run any teevee ads.

those cost have already been absorbed by all the other campaigns… and you've gotta figure Clark is paying a premium for starting so late.

...was to accept matching funds. Let's not forget, he's only been in the race for 8 weeks.

These other candidates have been raising funds for over a year.

Opting in helps him make up for lost time, financially speaking.

Clark, who started his campaign in late September, raised $3.5 million in the first two weeks. He expects to collect at least $6 million in the current fund-raising quarter, which runs from October through December.

"Both have been raising money for over a year and are blanketing the key early states with television advertising and paid campaign workers," Segal wrote in the e-mail. "As you know well, Wes Clark's campaign began just eight weeks ago."

Big money candidates like Dean & Kerry don't really want money out of politics now do they?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is not accepting matching funds - with the restrictions that come along for the ride - a violation of the spirit of campaign finance? I don't think so. When/if we ever have true and equal public campaign financing, with the advantage of corporate money nulled, then I'll agree with you.

but to completely flip-flop on the issue for political expediency shows a true lack of character.

The Yahoo article rightly points out that the FEC indicated that Heinz money which was not held jointly in Kerry's name as well as his wife's before his candidacy was declared can not be used. And Kerry's campaign has never been forthcoming on actually how much money is available to him.

Does anyone know?

apparently Kerry has PERSONAL assets in the neighborhhod of $150 million - $800 million that he can draw from.

I've read many different figures, but I don't think any reporter really has any idea how much money Kerry has. My guess is enough to drop $50M or so in the race and still be extremely rich.

The yahoo is article is correct that he can only use joint Kerry and Heinz money, but the couple discussed this at length with attorneys prior to Kerry declaring. His candidancy has been planned for years, so I would bet that a significant amount of her assets were transfered into joint assets long before he declared.

Also, Heinz can use as much of her wealth as she wants to defend any personal attack against her. I think that the other candidates are smart enough and like her enough not to do this. On the other hand I think Reps. will try to sneak in insults and then she is free to make the equivilant of soft money ads.

Kerry hasn't gone directly to the FEC and no one knows exactly how much money he could use. He's not hiding anything. Plus, he assumed that other candidates would keep their promises to receive matching funds, so the inquiry wouldn't be needed.

I don't feel that the net-worth of any of our candidates is our business. He has followed all disclosure rules required for a Senator, although I'm the first to admit that they are vague. Until he uses any of his own money for the campaign, it doesn't matter. He'll have to disclose the amount of personal money he uses, if it happens.

Anyone who expects to be competitive with Bush should really opt out. It's entirely possible, given Clark's consistently high polling, that he could be the nominee, and if the most money he can raise is 25% of what Bush raises, we may have a very serious problem on our hands in terms of being competitive with Bush, who I'm sure will take a page from the tobacco companies' playbook and simply try to spend his opponent to death.

I can understand how people feel who oppose the decision to do this on ethical grounds, but the simple fact is that Bush is just not going to play by the rules. It sucks to be put in a position where the choice has to be made between principles and competitiveness, but I think the stakes are just too high this time around. Dean did the right thing by opting out, and so did Kerry, I agree with Kerry's assessment 100% that anyone who expects to have a shot at this will need every resource they can get their hands on to win this.

Not because of a spending disparity.

I don't know how to address that particular problem. I have no idea why so many Dems don't vote. Opting out of public financing is, in my opinion, a good step, but I have no answers for the low voter turnout. It breaks my heart every year.

that's why Clark should opt out---I don't care if his staying in is to make him "look good---ethically clean next to Bush"----he needs all the money he can raise to beat Bush in advertising dollars.

Kerry will use his wife's funds, but I
don't think Clark is a rich man and unless
the DNC/DLC decides to bundle cash for
him, Clark should probably take voter
funding to compete.

I don't have a problem with it either way,
considering Bush is laundering money through
the RNC.

Dean's wealth is estimated to be between $2 million - $5 million.

Kerry can't use his wife's funds… only funds that were in his personal account(s) or their joint account(s) at the time he filed to run for president.

IMHO, this goes beyond the ethics of saying they'll abide by campaign finance reform limitations and stick to the promises they orginally made.

These two grown men, both of them intelligent, are going to bankrupt the grassroots Democrats in their selfish, ego-driven bid for the nomination. They're going to siphon off all the little donations between now and March as they battle against each other, and when the little donations dry up they will go after the corporate donations and incur the obligations to the corporations that have led to this whole mess.

And then when it comes to September and October, when it's time to enter the fight against the REAL enemy, none of US will have money left to give, and we'll be so angry at each other that there won't even be much of a demoralized and too-pissed-off-at-each-other-to-vote-for-ANYONE/BUT/BUSH Democratic Party left. . . .

. . . and mister $270 million bush will just waltz back into the white house with nary a tv commercial, or vote, against him.

Campaign finance reform has just been thrown to the winds. By the awol asshole first, but then by copycat spineless Dean and Kerry. It's meaningless. Integrity is a thing of the past for politicians.

I was prepared to support John Kerry. I had been wavering between him and Howard Dean for months. Dean's stance on guns, his confederate flag comments, his insulting remarks about Rev. Sharpton, and finally his opting out of federal funds shoved me the last few steps toward the Kerry camp. I hesitated to plant my feet firmly there, but I was nonetheless pretty sure by a few days ago that I would go for Kerry.

What held me back was the vote on the war. I dismissed Dean's "I woulda voted no" statements as empty; he wasn't there, so he doesn't really know what he would have done. And I reluctantly accepted Kerry's excuses/rationales on his vote. But I wasn't comfortable with it, not in light of his 1971 "Winter Soldiers" statement. I smelled a cop-out, a betrayal.

But I could go along with it because I know there's no candidate anyone agrees with 100%. I thought Kerry was the better candidate; if not a better campaigner, then the better choice for president and the better candidate to beat whistleass.

Now I'm not so sure. I don't think Kerry really wants to fight that hard. Does he want to BUY the nomination, and bankrupt the party faithful financially as well as emotionally? Maybe. Maybe he really does have a sense that's he's entitled to it and that entitlement justifies his doing anything to obtain it. But I don't think he really wants to get down there and fight with hearts and minds.

I blame Terry McAuliffe for this, and Bill Clinton, and Al Gore. None of them, as "spiritual" leaders of the Democratic Party, took the reins of leadership to stop the madness of this insane primary. This is political stupidity and selfishness and suicide carried to the nth degree. I'm ashamed and appalled and embarrassed, and I know not one of them gives a rat's hairy ass what I think.

A thoroughly disgusted, discouraged, disillusioned and royally pissed off

Tansy Gold, who had to edit this already because she didn't check for typos

our Campaign! We are Grassroots at it finest! All of us contributing relatively small amounts to the campaign.

IMO, you should save your wrath for bush and not the Democrats. :kick:

. . ."the Democrats": Dean, Kerry, McAuliffe, Clinton, and Gore.

Dean's campaign is no longer grassroots. It was at one time, maybe, but it isn't any more.

My utter contempt and loathing and hatred is directed at *. I will still vote for the Democratic nominee, but I will be far less inclined to contribute to or volunteer in their campaigns. And whatever I do, I will save it until after there is a nomination.

Maybe it would be easier if they all just dropped their drawers and let Carol Moseley-Braun measure their dicks, because that's what this election is really a surrogate for. We don't elect our president by which one has the biggest penis, we let them accumulate cash instead. Why not just get back to basics, leave the money in the economy, and avoid all the antagonism?

You do not know what you are talking about if you say that.

read on DU!

No matter who wins, I think you are right. The system
is spoiled and we aren't helping.

Might want to thank Bush for that one.

At least Dean is getting financial support from mainly small contributors from normal people, instead of writing himself a check.

no amount of money will help Kerry if he keeps using this slippery rhetoric.

So let's say Clark is the nominee and Dean the VP nominee. Dean has TONS more money because of his organization.

Can Dean keep using his organization to raise money for the campaign, as VP nominee if Clark has accepted public money? How does this work????

Campaing funds can be transfered from one campaign to another. If Clark is at the top of the ticket with Dean as VP and they want Dean's cash, they'd have to opt out of public financing and return any public funds they've reveived to that point.

He would just have to run a less expensive campaign in terms of costs. That and he could organize VOLUNTEERS to help with his campaign. That and if he wins the nom then the party can use what money it has and help get out voters and the like, which wouldn't be directly involved with Clark's campaign, but it would help a lot. That and CLark is VERY good on teh stump. He might not be able to be everywhere at once, but it might HELP rather than HURT him to campaign in person rather than use TV ads.

since Clark's own supporters protest the lack of media time given to Clark.

and tripling him in South Carolina, so im sure that while the media may be pro-Dean, he has the chance to overcome those odds.

to be making news and making it big with the SEIU, California Teacher's Association, the Painters Union, and the Federal Employees Union, endorsements as of late.

for less damn money if he just advertised regularly
in local Newspapers (it would definitely work for
rural areas anyway).

I could present a long thesis on this as to why it
would work so if anyone wants to know my theory,
just ask -- I have already presented it to the Clark
campaign.

the kerry camp when Dean was thinking about opting out of "federal funds".

<>