Does Edwards Have a Matching-Funds Problem or Not?

http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/72335/#more

Does Edwards Have a Matching-Funds Problem or Not?

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 12:04 PM on January 2, 2008.


Will Edwards' caps undermine him if he wins the nomination?


Yesterday, the wives of two of the leading Democratic candidates sparred over the limits of the federal matching-funds system. It's a point I've been wondering about for months.



Well, yes, the Edwards campaign certainly does "discount the argument," but objectively speaking, will Edwards' caps undermine him if he wins the nomination?

This isn't a rhetorical question; I'm really hoping someone can help me out with this, because right now, it's probably my top concern about Edwards' candidacy.

This came up in October on "Meet the Press," and I was hoping Edwards could convince me that these fears are unfounded. He didn't.



That's very pleasant rhetoric, which I don't find reassuring in the slightest.

No matter who gets the Democratic nomination, the GOP nominee and the Republican smear machine will be doing exactly what they always do -- spending millions to tear the Democratic candidate down. It'd be great if money were irrelevant, but that's just not realistic until there's a major reform effort. Under the current rules -- which will be in place in November -- national candidates with "big and bold ideas," who lack the resources to get that message out and knock down right-wing smears, struggle badly in elections.

Markos had an item about this a couple of months ago, and he came to the conclusion that this is "worse than I ever imagined."



If there's a pro-Edwards spin to all of this, I'm anxious to hear it.

they owe because they won't be in quorum come January 1st. A number of their members were recess appointments - which expired as of end of 2007. Until replacements are nominated/confirmed, whatever - FEC cannot discharge it's duties. She mentioned that edwards campaign will be one of the worst hit by this.

Democratic principle??

Sorry, I don't buy it and I don't think it's right - either, in principle or consequence.

will be throwing gold pieces at Edwards' feet? This isn't a slam but an honest question I wish someone had an answer to. This isn't the first time it's been brought up.
And FWIW, Edwards is my second choice, so I hope he has it figured out.

That's my point. Vote for who you agree with in policy and principle -- celebrity endorsements and war chests be damned.

That's democracy.

money wouldn't and shouldn't matter. But the sad fact is, it does. Why don't you think more or any unknowns don't run? They don't have the funds.

And Edwards will not have anything close to $40 million to spend by the end of the primary race. As of Sept 30th, he'd raised $30 million. He'd spent close to $18 million. It's three months later. He's spent at least another $8 million. He's probably raised another $8 million plus in the third quarter. He gets $8 milion in matching funds. Add it up. He's raised approx $46 million. He has a spending cap of $50 million through August. He's already spent at least half of that. He's got no more than $25 million to spend for 9 months. How can he even pay staffers and fund operations, let alone run candidate ads if he wins the nomination. 527s can pick up a lot of slack, but they can't coordinate with the campaign and they can't run ads for JE or against the puke- at least not directly.

I saw this article, I thought I'd share. It could be a problem. I figured if Edwards had addressed it, someone would post.
We shall see.

But not necessarily one that cannot be surmounted. I am no expert on campaign financing, however. Still, I think the Edwards people need to address the issue of strategy ... how do we win if Edwards gets the nomination. At this point, I think comparison of platform is more important than comparison of war chests ... but you are correct to point out the matter.

We cannot afford to lose to the Republicans. The country may never recover from another four years of these goons.

in the spirit they are intended. IE -- using what is being lambasted as evil can be used for the good that we can make it.

True, many things that shouldn't be legal are and that gets me no end. Welcome to the land of Enron, WorldCom and Tyco and all that.

That said, there are powerful groups out there that are empowered to speak out for the ISSUES that their party supports. I am talking about MoveOn.org, groups like my pnhp.org and other such groups (unregistered but allowable under 527) that focus on the ISSUES and are not restrained by the particular campaign.

>>>>>>>> I am NOT talking about Swiftboating a candidate (although that nuance will be lost on *many* who respond to this)

We can support these groups to speak out about the health care crisis, climate change, ending the damn war already, the economy and anything else we want. That is the power of the netroots.

Yes, this can be abused (and seeming has even before the first vote is cast), but doesn't mean that it can't be used for good.

My candidate is against 527s, and understandably. No coordination in a game of chess played with marbles, defeats the purpose of public financing, etc...

While I see their downside, I also see why they were allowed in the first place.

To give We The People a fucking VOICE for a change as opposed to only having to hear from the campaigns themselves.

While I would like to see reforms -- I think this is a powerful tool to get our MESSAGE about the ISSUES that concern us out in the airwaves.

Have a blessed 2008 :hug:

On Edit: Spelling and hopefully got 'em all

And I hope Edwards does not have any financial problems down the road, but it is an issue worthy of thinking about, especially since Edwards himself hasn't cleared anything up. I don't want him to get to a certain point and not be able to go further due to lack of money. I know lots could happen, people could start to donate more, but the funds issue does leave a dangling question mark. That's the only reason for this post.

Enough said

Oh and can loan himself 10 25 million or bank loan? etc...dont need a billion on who they got (on there side)

Welcome to DU :welcome:

Can't loan himself anything.

And unless the opposition candidate has also accepted matching funds (and that would be Huckabee only...so pray that he wins the GOP Nom), we are up shit's creek without a paddle. Even McCain understood this, and although he qualifies for matching funds, he has decided to wait until after New Hampshire primary to decide whether he will take them. If he does well in NH, the dough for McCain should come rolling in and he can then decline the matching fund offer.

The worst of it is that Edwards has never really taking a good vetting from the media. They have for the most part either left him alone (as was the case through all of 2003 and again through most of 2007) or they have provided him with positive press only (as was the case once he came in 2nd in Iowa in 2004, and when they were pushing him for the Kerry ticket Veep slot, and in the last two weeks, at which time, Edwards has been enjoying a very "nice" press while Clinton and Obama have been put under much more scrutiny this primary season than Edwards was in his 6 years running for Prez). I am afraid that once the press starts to scrutinize John Edwards, it will be rabid....and he will be pretty much helpless.

I'm not feeling good about the possible, most likely scenario.

But maybe having Edwards and his matching funds as the Democratic nominee is the only way that the GOP could even have any hope at all to win....and maybe the media understood that before John Edwards did. :(

He lost the entire election the day he decided to take public funds. I think it was an extremly selfish and short sited move.

didn't raise as much as he had hoped to raise which is why he first opted out of taking them. Everyone who thinks he took them for moral reasons is ignoring reality. He more or less was forced to take them. What gets me is that he keeps lying about the reasons he took matching funds.

Which is why I say it was selfish. He's competitive now, but when it counts, he's going to be a sitting duck, letting down all of those who believed in him.

When he couldn't raise the money that he wanted to, he should have done the respectable thing and conceded.

Kerry did in his presidential race: Used his own money. One has to wonder why he didn't.

nt

happened to win the nomination.

Is this really what our country has come to ... positioning to have the greatest war chest?

That kind of thinking is what delivered GW Bush and many other GOP nimrods who have royally F'd up the country and the world.

Fact is, Edwards knows all sorts of rich folk he could call on to send some cash his way ... but, he chose to try to win nomination, the old fashioned way, through substance, ideas, and principle.

Shame on him for thinking MAYBE Americans weren't as shallow and gullible as the media would lead us to believe.

Getting outspent over 2:1 in the GE will just ensure that the Republicans keep the Whitehouse. Why would be want that? To completely ignore the realities of the situation in order to win the "good guy" award?

unless Dems become so much like the GOP (pandering, focusing on contributions, etc.) that there is no difference between the parties.

Unfortunately, what I've witnessed lately leads me to believe it is possible.

Fact is, average Americans want change. Someone who will give a rat's rear about the 96% currently underrepresented. The people paying for everying, including Corporate Welfare/Payback.

They are sick of jobs being sent offshore and companies collecting massive profits by manipulating the system (contracts/corp welfare/special consideration/exemptions) and companies not paying their fair share of taxes by using offshore accounting. The whole thing stinks to high heaven for the average American hard-working taxpayer.

but it still wasn't enough.

Edwards was on the 2004 ticket that spent 241 million dollars even before the beginning of the General Election (and that was just Kerry's share) and had to have understood that he's no exception to what will happen without adequate funding. What was he thinking? :shrug:

of NOT taking federal matching funds for the primaries UNTIL he didn't do well in fundraising. He said in February of last year that he would not accept them. In Sept. he changed his mind. This has nothing to do with his principles or substance. Yes, the whole money thing is disgusting but we are stuck with this disgusting situation, and pretending we're not, or bizarrely claiming that the thoughts expressed in this thread are what put bush in the WH, is just a full tilt denial of reality. That's the kind of thinking that WILL deliver the WH to the repukes.

You are projecting on to JE that which isn't supportable.

"You're misrepresenting facts: JE had every intention

of NOT taking federal matching funds for the primaries UNTIL he didn't do well in fundraising. He said in February of last year that he would not accept them. In Sept. he changed his mind. This has nothing to do with his principles or substance. Yes, the whole money thing is disgusting but we are stuck with this disgusting situation, and pretending we're not, or bizarrely claiming that the thoughts expressed in this thread are what put bush in the WH, is just a full tilt denial of reality. That's the kind of thinking that WILL deliver the WH to the repukes.

You are projecting on to JE that which isn't supportable."

Good point.

I like Edwards as a candidate