Edwards, now publicly funded
I'm a little puzzled by Ben Smith's skepticism about Edwards' decision to take matching federal funds this election. He reads the talking points and writes: "Short version: It's not because he has to, its because he wants to. Really."
OK. Edwards fundraising totals are definitely way behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's. But by the standards of every other primary race ever he still has tons and tons of money. Plenty of money if his plan is to simply shift his campaign strategy in Iowa from one in which he doesn't run television ads to one in which he does. It seems to me that this isn't Edwards throwing in the towel. Whether it was a matter of pure principle, or a matter of more favorable mathematics, this genuinely was a choice.
And I believe that's what's driving Matt's skepticism here:
I'm open to being spun in favor of the position that John Edwards made a savvy move by announcing his intention to accept public financing (and the spending limits that come with it) for his primary campaign, but his staff's official spin-memo isn't very convincing:
Why did we do this?
Quite simply, we did it because it is the right thing to do.
Sure....
I don't really get the snark here, though. Obviously one component of Edwards' decision is the optics of it. He wants to be perceived as the candidate who aggressively raises his middle finger to corrupting influences, and this is a perfectly good way to advance that perception. But if that's the goal, then what else can he say besides "it is the right thing to do"? It would be really bizarre if he said, "well, I can raise more money this way, in a more principled way than I could otherwise, in the months before the primary, plus I want to be perceived as a populist."
Likewise it would make little sense for him to say "I have offered such a strong health care platform not just because it's the right thing to do, but because I'm behind in the polls and I believe it will play well with voters."
I guess I just don't see why this is such an inscrutable move.
Comments
Because it means that he's severely limited he can spend before August 2008.
It limits him on a per-state basis (no more betting the farm on Iowa) and an overall basis--about $50 Million.
That means he has to make $50 Million stretch to cover not only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, but also every other single contested primary, including California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois.
And then, if he manages to somehow win on February 5 by spending that $50 Million, he is completely broke until August 2008. That gives the Republicans six months of uncontested attack ads against him with no ability for him to get his message out.
In other words, he screwed himself for Super Duper Tuesday, and royally screwed the entire party should he win. He also threw away his electability argumen.
You see, he did it so the many political experts on the blogoshere who support other candidates could jump and yell with their own righteous indignation.
Disagree. I saw this well reasoned argument by another blogger about how and why Edwards can manage with public financing:
"The republicans, mid-way through the 2004 cycle, found a loophole that allows the party to spend unlimited hard-money on behalf of the candidate, so long as the ad is on behalf of the entire party as well as the candidate. So that if Edwards becomes the nominee, the DNC can raise and spend unlimited hard money during the summer and fall, so long as the ads mention that he is a democrat, or that he's running against "republicans."
There's little doubt, in this cycle, that our nominee is going to run as a democrat and against republicans.
As for the state caps, thats also only on expenses by the campaign itself. IEs on his behalf don't count against the cap. Given that his strategy, under any circumstance, is going to rely heavily on support from allied groups, esp in his field effort. So its not necessarily going to hurt him as much there either.
As someone who has a hard time supporting even liberal democrats who don't make campaign finance a major issue, I'm actually glad to see him do this. I realize its out of necessity, but the recognition that without some public financing, we're going to have nothing but corporate Democratic candidates forever is an important part of his argument.
Since my small contributions, unlike the maxed-out donors that are powering Clinton, will be 100% matched, I'll give some more now."
I agree-- absolutely.
Well if he wins Iowa, he can spend much, much less in the other states, because he'll be a media darling for a week.
But even still. I'm unconvinced that there's much benefit past a certain point of having close-to-as-much money as your political rivals. This isn't really my area of expertise, but I have to imagine that above, say, $30 million, the marginal value of each additional dollar drops. Fast. Between his own funds, supportive PACs and the DNC, how much money does he really need to adequately defend himself and attack his opponent if he wins the primary between February and August?
Seems like madness to me.
Post A Comment