Dean, "Bait & Switch" on Campaign Funding

Election Law
The law of politics and the politics of law: election law, the California recall, campaign finance, legislation, voting rights, initiatives, redistricting
Rick Hasen's web log
« Colorado Re-redistricting Decision Due from State Supreme Court Monday | Main | More on Soros's Spending Against Bush »
November 30, 2003
Did Dean do a "Bait and Switch" on Campaign Funding?

A supporter of a Democratic candidate for President other than Howard Dean directs me to this request for an advisory opinion by the Gephardt campaign, which basically asks whether a presidential candidate who has agreed to accept public financing and then later changes his or her mind must tell donors of the switch and give them the option of a refund. The writer suggests that Dean "bait and switched many donors who gave under the now-invalidated belief (encouraged by the Dean campaign) that their dollars would be matched by the feds." It will be interesting to see how the FEC responds to the request for the advisory opinion. My guess is that if Dean is required to offer donors refunds, few would ask for their money back.

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/000312.html


Dean will say and do anything so long as he can come out ahead.

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

Dean will say and do anything so long as he can come out ahead.

;-)

Trying to actually WIN an election. That's it, he's done for. I'm sure all his supporters will revolt now.

so bad I could hardly write out the check to his campaign. ;-)

Fuuny, another slam Dean thread by a Clarkie who's managed to rack up over 1000 posts in less than two months.....

Colour me shocked! Not.

Julie

" Dean will say and do anything so long as he can come out ahead."

Thanks for providing it !

and i have many more for this candidate.

shit don't stink long here.

and I don't seem to hear anybody who feels they've been had.

address your comments to the author of the lil article.

don't even try the passive-agressive thing on me
:mad:

Passive-aggressive.....right-wing behavior is what it feels like.

"address your comments to the author of the lil article. "


LOL

It typically take fore-thought and intent with a post.

We want to give them as much ammunition as possible. Copy Rove on it too, of course.

as he is , then in Nov.2004

I got no problem with the fact that my contribution won't be matched. In fact, knowing that to be the case I think I will donate a little more right now ;)

Donate to my house party!

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/TR?fr_id=1282&pg=personal&px=1642846

It would mean we had no chance, just like the other candidates who will have to go dark all summer.

Flames thrown by supporters of both Clark and Dean help neither man nor the Democratic Party. I know I get disgusted at the repeated anti-Clark flames, ranging from Baby killer, War Criminal, Blood Thirsty Serial Killer, to Republican Trojan Horse, to Corporate tool and Water carrier etc. etc. But I get disgusted by the repeated anti-Dean flames also. The anger ends up pointing in the wrong direction. Unless you truly believe Dean would be worse than Bush, remember who will will need to be working alongside to defeat him. If I am trying to rebut Anti Clark bashing, I would rather my "allies" would stop egging it on with taunts in other candidates' supporters faces.

It makes you wonder who is getting dissed. By spending so much time bashing candidates, these folks are really showing their contempt and lack of respect for US, not the people we support.

This isn't a flame. They are facts that I found. Do you see the difference?

Now if you want to assign the word "flame " to anything that doesn't show someone in a good light , you do that. I'll call them what they are FACTS.

...you post from a blog in which a person who claims to be a non-Dean supporter says that it's possible that things MIGHT be happening and speculates on other things.

And somehow, you claim you're posting FACTS????

There's a whole new definition of delusional on the horizon....no, wait, it's already here.

than in the "Dean will do anything it takes" commentary you add. But you know, sometimes even facts have to be viewed in the context of why they are being talked about when and to whom. I think throwing "facts" around in some cases is the equivelent of a flame. Truth is a defence against libel, but the fact that that someone accurately pointed out that Clinton's semen was found on Monica's dress doesn't disprove the premise that making a big deal out of pointing it out wasn't an uncalled for political attack. I'm talking about attitude also.

"Better to out them now then in Nov blah blaah blah..."

Bullshit.

This is nothing but a petty excuse to hide behind while you trumpet forth your losing case for your losing candidate.

You do not have the best intentions for the Democratic party at heart. All you care about is to defeat Howard Dean, at all costs.

Pathetic.

The sig!

\/ \/ \/

Man, this is great. You talk in one thread about how Dean gets all of the attention and then post a thread about Dean! Priceless!

Poor Gep. I'll tell you , Dean has raised TONS more money than YOUR guy, whoever the hell that is, and most of it from people like me. People giving what they can when they can. BLOWN AWAY.

The best part, Dean's campaign IS finance reform. He hasn't violated the spirit of finance reform at all. But it's OK. He let us choose.

Poor Gep.

The reason campaign finance is important is to keep the politicians from being bought off by a few big money donors.

The only candidate who has less corporate donors is Kucinich. The vast majority of Dean's money comes in the form of small donations from ordinary people and that's exactly who you want your candidate to be bought off by.

Sour grapes from Dick because no one gives a damn about him enough to cut him a check.

Dems are crazy if they agree to the spending limits in an election year in which Dubya will collect and spend $200 million in bribes from the rich. Don't worry about any so-called 'bait and switch' by Dean: Dean is dependent on many small donations, and on continuing grass-roots involvement in his campaign. If the activists don't like what he does, he suffers.

And they support him.

At least he doesn't have to write himself a check.

I hope he keeps this out of the campaign, just let the FEC decide and accept the decision, let Dean pay the fine or whatever.

If Dean wins the nomination, Rove will score a few points with this thing, but I think it will be outweighed by the advantage Dean will get from the extra money. Plus, people will see obvious unfairness in Bush having such a huge amount of money.

Even if this posting is flame bait. There is a question here.

Gov. Dean didn't answer it on Hardball last night and nobody's addressing it here. (I asked it earlier and then couldn't find the thread again, so it may have been answered.) I consider it an honest question. Is it about beating George Bush or is it about beating every other Dem in the primary?

It's one thing to be for public financing, and then against it once you've raised a ton of money, if it is for the general election against George Bush. Will Dean use the war chest against Democrats in the primaries? Is he already doing it?

If you can't answer this by other than fluffing it off the way your candidate did last night, don't bother. I would appreciate a more considered response than the questioner received on Hardball.

On Hardball

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Governor Dean, you said you would-you would bypass federal matching funds to compete financially with President Bush. But doing also frees you from spending caps in several key primary states. Will you still respect state spending limits? And, if not, how can you say you are committed to public financing, when you abandon the system because you can afford it, while others still abide by its limits?

DEAN: Well, actually, I abandoned the system not because we could afford it, but because we could beat George Bush that way. We planned the — look, our campaign is campaign finance reform. We raised three times as much money as everybody else in the last quarter, average donation, $77 from 200,000 people. That is campaign finance reform.

Interestingly enough, one-quarter of all our donors are under 30 years old. This campaign is about taking back this country and giving it to the generation who’s going to have to live with all the horrendous policies that George Bush is inflicting on us.

is the record. Dean has yet to spend exorbitant amounts of money in the primaries, even in hotly contested Iowa. He just raised around 600,000 dollars in a few days time to counter a Bushco ad. Until we see him go out of his way to blow his wad against Dems, there's no need to be suspicious about it.

Also note that Dean has yet to raise more money than he would have received with the matching funds. Had he taken the funds, he'd have his $45 million, right now I don't think he's at $35 mil.

I hope that you don't take this as dancing around. Does it make sense?

It makes sense as far as it can go since, as you say, we only have the record to go by. So I take it Dean has not made a statement of his intention, then. Thank you.

But as a Dean supporter, I can appreciate that, already cringing at the idea of three or four candidates teaming up against him. Then Dean has the combined budgets to battle, all the while with people breathing down his neck about state limits.

What I wish is that there could be a spending limit on any ad that contains a call out.

Gep will spend his cash in Iowa, Kerry in NH, Edwards in SC. Dean has to be able to compete with all of those.

:eyes:

That I think will be the mentality of most Dean supporters not "Give my money back you deceiver" Some people never give up with their trashing.

You really have to wonder with some of these threads.

Granted they are made up 95% of antiDean bullsquish, but look at all the accompanying hand wringing, wails of tortured souls wondering if we're doing the right thing by building up all this filthy lucre. Should we? Shouldn't we? Federal funds or no?

Keep this in mind while you smack this dead issue over the washerwoman's rock. As you go through a long dark night of the soul about fund raising, your opponent, that assmunch in the White House, is going to be counting more and more of his campaign cash to keep that seat for four more years. And trust me; not an inch of his Jeebus-lovin conscience is going to lose a second of sleep over it.

And it's not just here at DU, Dean's getting attacked all over the radio and all over the cable shows. I wonder what it all means.