Dean vs. Clark: Campaign Finances

Do you think Clarks' acceptance of the FEC limits on spending or Dean's choice to go outside these restictions will have an effect on the primary?

If so- how do these advatages/disadvantages translate into the presidential campaign?

If Clark is the nominee, we will be subjected to months of attacks with no way to fight back. Dean, on the other hand will be able to hit back hard. If anybody but Dean or Kerry gets the nom we're doomed and that's that.

So... if Clark gets the nomination... what's his cap? I forget... $40 Million?

And Bush has what... $200 million?

That's definitely a good point to consider.

Dean can spend whatever he can raise, as can Kerry.

If a candidate drops out of the race but still has money can they spend that money ABB? For instance say Dean drops out, but still has cash. Can he spend money to either attack Bush or promote the Democratic leader prior to the general election.

But at the end, if you have the best candidate, I beleive that the money won't matter as much as we have been led to believe. Especially if you've to strong grassroot support.

Dean has an advantage as he has no restrictions beyond making sure he raises all of the money he needs. He has the disadvantage of having to concentrate on raising money...thereby limiting his schedule to always having to accomodate that goal

The fact that he reniged on his original pledge and said that he would make an issue out of those who would not abide by the pledge is not helpful. because, Dean, therefore, has an issue with himself.

Clark actually is not "dead man walking" when it comes the real critical period, between March and July. First he does have the advantage of having matching funds available to him. If he raises 12-15 million in the 4th quarter, he will receive matching funds raising his kitty to 24-30 million. I believe that he has a ceiling of 45 million(?) until the national convention to be held in July. After that, he can opt out. Although many say that he will run out of money prior to the convention in July; I beg to differ. Once March is over (which means he'll need money to win the primaries for only a couple of months which will not exhaust his funds) and he turns out to be the nominee; the March to July period becomes the time when the "interest groups", e.g., Soros, etal and Boots on the ground go to work and into action.

Interest groups can criticize the President directly while not making any reference to the candidate. They are not limited by any ceilings. This may be a better course of action in effectiveness in challenging President Bush. One thing I noticed is that direct offensive attacks are not affective against Bush, if its directly coming from his opponent (won't be during the general anyway). An indirect attack strategy would work better in keeping our candidate (Clark) looking clean and and advertising only to promote his agenda in a positive manner...meanwhile the interest groups could decontruct Bush's policies.

Boots on the ground is a volunteer function not paid for directly by the candidate (unions, etc...) and therefore that activity would not be hampered March through July by the fundraising issue.

With a candidate not so intensely concentrating on fundraising, the candidate will have free time on his schedule to appeal to large groups of voters who may not pay to hear what the candidate has to say. Thereby the candidate get on a train, speak at large free rallies, etc....

In July, the candidate (Clark) can opt out of public financing....and spend the last few months raising the additional money required to do heavy advertising in the manner he so chooses. With no competition but Bush, raising money than becomes an easier task. 4 months before the election is when all of the action will start in earnest anyway, and I believe that fundraising at that time will not be an issue....because many will have been waiting to contribute, if he had gone over his quota prior to July.

Bush will certainly utilize the majority of his huge campaign chest during the last part of the election......(during that time, neither of the candidates would be subject to fundraising limitations).

If he doesn't spend enough money to win the primaries to get his message out, he will be ignored by voters and lose. If he spends $45 million during the primary, he CAN NOT LEGALLY CAMPAIGN until the new cycle begins. That means he will be open to attacks and CAN NOT START RAISING any money again until August. This is why Dean opted out of matching funds. Dean didn't do it to beat the other Dems, which he knew that he could do. He did it so that he could defeat Bush.

Napoleon said in an attack you need a three to one advantage to win.

Clark, at this point will have a 1-4 ratio working against him. Is it realistic to think this disadvantage can be overcome in the way you described?

It's been discussed how the Dole campaign in Clinton's 2nd term ran out of money, and for three months had to endure issue ads without being able to respond.

Is it too late for Clark to change his mind on the matching funds? And if not, given his fundraising track record, is this realistic?

It's too late.

Cause of Dean rejecting restrictions: Bush

Cause of Clark accepting restrictions: paucity of contributing supporters

New sandbox for primary candidate-bashing: Priceless. :)

there is that too.

1) Integrity:

I would think that Dean's frequent policy flip flops would spook
possible supporters. This was a classic, and had him standing on
principle one day and rejecting that principle another day.
People may not know when to believe him, and that could well
have an impact on whether or not he makes it to the general election.

-The Federal Election Commission declared Dean
eligible for matching funds, then Dean signed a letter to the
commission in June promising to abide by the program's rules,
including its spending limits.

-In a March 7 interview with The Associated Press, Dean committed
to accept the taxpayer money saying:
''We've always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is
just something I believe in,'' he said in March.

-In November Dean then exercised his "choice" to opt out of
public financing in the primaries, calling it "a broken
system." It's weird that he didn't think it wasn't "broken" in
March but did think so in November.

2) Money:

Of course more money is a short term advantage against moneybags
Bush. No disputing that. But if Dean is still around, he'll
get slammed constantly on his hypocrisy on the subject of funding.
And Bush, as always will be untouchable.

So Dean keeps handing the Pugs ammo, which is invaluable to
them (money issues aside). And General Clark has not handed this
issue to the Pugs. He said he'd abide by the FEC rules, and he
seems to be a man who keeps his word.

It's a significant point of contrast.

He could repay the public financing assistance, pledge to pay the FEC fines later, and give 'er--sort of like Gephardt did several cycles ago when he busted caps.

Who's going to complain? Other Democratic candidates? Nope. Bush? Yeah, because Clark is doing the exact same thing he's doing, except making the decision later due to the primary process? Repub complaints will sound idiotic.

So it's not a problem.

Thanks to Dean's leadership.

That charge get's handed out pretty easily.

Here is Wesley swearing to take Fed money and accept the cap- then he changes his mind?

Dean takes a lot of heat for being big enough to adapt to change- could Clark survive the same? I would think it wise of him, but some would see it at oppurtunistic and fickle; just like a politician.

I think the way Dean let his followers "vote" his way out his flip-flop was cheap. If Clark does that, he will be seen as a flip-flopper and un-savvy politically.

I think everyone would be taking matching funds for the general election regardless, but I will certainly retract that's if proved otherwise - just going on something I read here...

Plus, we have soft money (Soros etc.) lining up to nail Bush for the many wrongs he's done to the American people, regardless of the candidate...