Does Edwards have a matching-funds problem or not?

January 2, 2008

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.

…Elizabeth Edwards isn’t happy with what Michelle Obama is saying on the campaign trail about the effects of John Edwards’ decision to accept federal matching funds for his presidential campaign.

“I’m surprised and disappointed in Michelle,” Mrs. Edwards reportedly said at a campaign event Monday night.

Mrs. Edwards comments were spurred by a voter recounting a conversation Mrs. Obama had with his 17 year-old daughter, claiming the Illinois senator’s wife told his daughter not to support Edwards because the spending caps he is subjected to for accepting federal campaign money will seriously hinder his chances in a general election.

For his part, John Edwards discounted the argument that his limited campaign funds are hurting his presidential bid.

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.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have both outraised you in terms of campaign finance and fund-raising. You have now opted for public financing. The DailyKos Web site has said this makes you a very dangerous candidate because between the time that primaries are over and the conventions start, you’ll only have about $40 million to spend to ward off Republican attacks. That — and this is one of the reasons why you should not be the nominee, because you’d be in such a weakened position.

EDWARDS: Do you want me to respond?

RUSSERT: Please.

EDWARDS: I–this is going to be an election, Tim, it’s not going to be an auction. You know, we’re not going to determine who can raise the most money and thereby who should be president of the United States. It’s an amazing thing to me that when you do something that you believe is right, same thing I did in 2003 and 2004, that this is the response. What I know is true, I know that when we get to after February 5 and it’s pretty clear who the Democratic nominee for president’s going to be, that there needs to be absolutely clear divisions between me as the Democratic nominee and the Republicans.

And I am completely convinced if I have, and I believe I will, beaten two celebrity candidates who will probably have spent over $200 million during the course of the nomination process, I can certainly beat a Republican who’s carrying George Bush’s baggage. And the way I will do it is not on the basis of money, but on the basis of what America needs, on the basis of principle stand, on the basis of big and bold ideas.

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.”

[W]hat would Edwards do, depend on free media? Really? The same ones that trashed Gore and Kerry, and have already done a good number on Edwards? Rely on the good sense of the voting public? Please. If you can’t talk to them, they listen to the people who can.

Money isn’t everything in politics. But there’s a difference being outspent $4 million (like in Montana’s 2006 Senate race), or $9 million (like in Virginia’s 2006 Senate race), and being outspent by $125 million. Kerry spent $175 million through the summer in 2004. Political inflation will likely make that number even bigger this time around.

For the Edwards plan to work and not hurt us, we would need: A ridiculously frugal Edwards effort, with nary a wasted dollar spent to win the nomination, Fundraising troubles for the RNC, the GOP nominee, and the conservative 527s, Gangbuster fundraising for the DNC and progressive 527s, A media willing to treat Edwards with respect and fairness, A public unusually resistant to typical GOP bullshit and scare tactics. […]

That’s quite a few assumptions for an election that will decide the course of the war in Iraq and who replaces Justice Stevens (which will either keep the Supreme Court “lean conservative”, or push it to “batshit insane right-wing”), not to mention all the other issues and causes we care about, including, well, public financing.

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

[comment deleted]

  • If Edwards wins the nod, are there rules in place about Obama or Clinton ponying up their money to him? Can some of their money go to the Dem party which can go back to election advertising or to the 527’s? IF both Obama and Clinton are knocked out as THE candidate, what happens to all those multi millions that they have?

    How f()ked up is this that we even have to think about this? ARGH!!

  • Two things come to mind: (1) The republican candidates as a group are the weakest and most unpalatable choices that I can remember and (2) by choosing matching funds Edwards will be less beholden to the almighty corporate money that has thoroughly corrupted our political system.

  • Kropotkin, your #2 is obviously correct – and the very point of public financing – but to Carpetbagger’s concern, how beholden one is or is not is only relevant if you get elected. I think Edwards’ non-answer of Russert’s question was, essentially, an admission that he would be massively outspent over the summer (I think it also makes it hard for him to get to “summer” — the per state caps will make it hard for him, even if he wins Iowa, to leverage that against Clinton and Obama). So we really are putting all of our eggs in your #1 basket: that the Rethugs are so bad that even an extra $125 million in spending won’t matter.

    (Although – and I am not a campaign finance expert – but I assume there are ways Edwards could either back out and pay the money back or simply take the fines and bust the caps).

  • Let’s put this into a measurable perspective.

    Imagine a boxing match. Two fighters, one ring, and only one champion.

    What Edwards is proposing with his “big, bold ideas” is a lot of fancy footwork, a fistful of theatrics, and a whole big bunch of prancing around the ring. Meanwhile, his opponent—the GOP candidate/smear-machine tag team—will be landing punch after punch. It won’t matter if Edwards is still standing at the end of the final round; every punch landed against him will tally as points for his opponent—and yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as “winning by points-based decision.” All the “bold ideas” in the world will not reverse that decision.

    Edwards will need to step up and trade punches—blow for blow—with his opponent, and to think otherwise is to illuminate the just how tactically unqualified Edwards is as a heavyweight candidate. This is not going to be a “welterweight” or “bantamweight” contest—and the “heavy” in heavyweight is going to be defined as the contents of the war chest.

    Another analogy might be to imagine two great dreadnoughts of the First World War era; massive armored behemoths of the ocean trading rounds from 12-inch main guns. If all one ship does is dodge, weave, and work damage control—while the other continues pouring round after round of explosive ordnance into the fray—it’s easy to imagine which of the two great ships will “go down to Davey Jones.”

    Bold ideas can be ignored; the MSM has demonstrated this for 7 years now. A flurry of well-placed punches cannot be warded off by mere talk, and neither can a flurry of high explosive ordnance.

    Edwards thinks they can—and that philosophy alone should be enough to warrant his not being given the nomination….

  • A media willing to treat Edwards with respect and fairness

    Highly unlikely – the media has been real unfair to Edwards so far – $400 haircuts et al – but that would seem like a cakewalk compared to what Murdoch & co will dish out. We really need big money to respond quickly.

    Good point MsJoanne – I wonder if anyone knows if primary losers’ money can be pooled? Probably not, but I wonder.

  • The impact of John Edwards’ decision will depend on which gooper wins their nomination. If it’s Romney, then he’s in trouble but Huckaboobie has opted for public financing as well. I’ll have to look into it, and see who’s public and who’s private but I believe there are other goopers in the “top tier” who have opted for public financing.

    Even if Edwards wins and the gooper is private, the smear money does not come from the official campaigns, however. That”s usually 527 money and there we seem to have an advantage this time around. I don’t know, but I am not too worried as long as the Dems are prepared to hit back and hit back hard on the 527 front.

  • IMHO this is a lot of worrying about what happened in the past. Look at the approval numbers for the Republicans, have we ever seen them this far down? Does Joe Public need to be told that the Republicans are Rat Bastards, when a leading Republican presidential candidate (Huckabee) is saying openly that the Republicans are the party of the rich? This is a huge opportunity, and what we need is a bit of courage to do what’s right and the will to fight like hell.

    Let’s not fall victim to the DLC moneychangers and the beltway bobbleheads, who want us all to keep doing exactly what we’ve been doing. There will be plenty of us who will be glad tro fund the 527s to the tune of double whatever the Republicans scape up for their crappy nominee, and those Progressive 527s will rip the Republicans to fucking shreds. We will bury them.

    This election it’s up to us to take it to the bastards, not wish that someone else do it, and the way we will do it is via the 527s and via the TRUTH. When we tell people that our guy isn’t taking corporate money, that’ll mean something.

  • Steve (#4), I’ll see your dreadnought and raise you a dozen airplanes with torpedoes. The Bismark is at the bottom of the ocean for a reason, and it wasn’t because another battleship took her down.

    If the Republicans had any credibility I would worry more about what they will try to spend tearing down Democrats. All we need to do is stand firm and answer each charge with “OK, let’s look at who’s saying that, and what else they’ve been lying about…”

  • #4, spot on analogy!

    And, unfortunately, we can’t forget that the GOP has its own full time media channel 24/7 which can lie and smear all it wants (the courts said so in 2003 when Fox won their appeal that there was no law against “distorting or falsifying the news in the United States”) so CB’s concerns about the reality of the upcoming election season are nothing to be sneezed at. It takes money for everything and everything in the US is for sale to the highest bidder…including us (as we are owned by either our corporate employer, the IRS, pick an agency, it doesn’t matter. Unless we are independently wealthy and solely self sufficient, we are owned).

  • We are beyond saturation with political ads. Maybe having fewer will actually get Edwards votes. And there’s nothing to stop MoveOn and other allied organizations from running ads attacking the Republican candidate’s policies/blunders.

  • Rather than muddle around on the issue of public financing, I thought I would look at what the Federal Elections Commission has to offer, which can be found here: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml

    Now, it looks to me like a candidate who accepts public funding for the primary period is not required to accept it for the general election, but what I don’t know is whether a candidate must wait until he or she is the nominee for the general election before raising private funds for the general election campaign. I’m guessing that the answer must be “yes,” otherwise, a candidate could raise private funds all through the primary period but set them aside in a designated account for the general election.

    That Edwards has accepted public funds for the primary, at least, does not mean that private groups cannot bankroll ads and mailings, so I would guess that 527 money would be supplementing whatever public funds are doled out for Edwards.

    There is one thing to consider: Edwards has been outspent on an exponential basis by Clinton and Obama, and yet, there he is, still in it, still in contention.

  • There is a solution, one which was mentioned a few times in the previous cycle. If by Feb. 5th, or a week or two thereafter, it becomes apparent that Edwards is the nominee, the Democratic National Committee can declare him the nominee on the spot, immediately entitling him to public funding. I believe that’s the solution to what is, yes, a real and significant problem (Michelle was quite right about that).

  • I would think with so many Democratic supporters so motivated to give, nominating Edwards would be a huge boon to groups such as Move On and to the Democratic National Party, congressional committees and state parties, and also to down-ticket candidates. Especially if Edwards realized this and urged people to give to these other Democratic organizations. It might limit his organizing ability in the states, but there are plenty of groups who can fill the gaps and lots of money available to support them.

  • It seems to me that if we ever want to stop the corporate oligarchy running this country, we have to support what Edwards is doing. MoveOn.Org will spend $$ and other 527s should be filling in the gap between spring and the convention attacking the last 8 years of corruption and deliberate dismatnling of our republic. That’s all people will be able to stand for all tha ttime anyway. Also, I expect the GOP nomination will be the focus for the corporate media because it may still be the horserace until the convention. They can’t entirely ignore Edwards once he’s the nominee, though I suspect they’ll try. Still, it’s not a good enough reaon not to support him. He’s the only candidate expressing opposition the corporatations running amuck, and how great would it be to have in office a president with only minimal debt to the corporate oligarchy!

  • Edwards would get creamed in the general, with or without adequate resources. Without them, he is that much more vulnerable. We would never hear the end of his 28000sq-ft house. Plus, his angry progressive demagoguery won’t fly outside of a Democratic primary.

    And Jackson, take a deep breath, my friend! You’re going to pop a blood vessel.

  • I think this is a terrible discussion — things are very, very different on the landscape.

    The $$$ question is largely tied to the question of television advertising. A candidate’s $$$ certainly go to organization, staffing, etc., but when we talk about $$$ we’re worried that the candidate won’t have enough to put on TV ads.

    And frankly, TV ads are becoming less and less important. There’s a lot more “free” and “viral” stuff going on, on the internets (all of them). There will be YouTube moments and passed around video. Whoever is the nominee is going to debut spots on YouTube and on their website — and they will be reported on and blogged about and discussed.

    After the Swift Boaters in 2004, there are any number of left-of-center organizations who are going to go punch for punch. We all know about 527s and they’re still legal. The Republicans will be swift-boated on several fronts, with the added advantage that (unlike the swift boaters) the allegations will be true.

    And $$$ will go to the Democratic party, and Howard Dean is not about to take *anything* lying down. If Dean has $$$ to spend, and Edwards is the nominee and needs to hang on until the convention, Dean will go to bat for him.

    This is a terrible discussion. If Edwards is the best candidate, let’s nominate him and get behind him, instead of eating our young, as usual.

  • Anne (#12): There is one thing to consider: Edwards has been outspent on an exponential basis by Clinton and Obama, and yet, there he is, still in it, still in contention.

    Indeed. Not quite exponenetial, but here are the numbers:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

    Clinton: $40,472,775
    Obama $44,169,236
    Clinton + Obama $84,642,011

    Edwards $17,932,103

    So Clinton outspent Edwards by 2.5x, Obama outspent him by 2.3x, and combined they spent 4.7 times more than Edwards.

    That should tell us something, if we’re brave enough to quit listening to the same people who’ve been running the show forever, and who keep sending us candidates like John Kerry (who sucked so bad he couldn’t even beat Bush).

    I’d really like to think the beltway bobbleheads are done speaking for us, at least in this cycle.

  • RacerX said: “Steve (#4), I’ll see your dreadnought and raise you a dozen airplanes with torpedoes. The Bismark is at the bottom of the ocean for a reason, and it wasn’t because another battleship took her down.”

    Actually, the HMS Rodney and HMS King George V sank the Bismarck. Admittedly after a torpedo attack from the HMS Victorious’ aircraft crippled her. So to be clear, a combination of disruptive light attacks, followed by a devasting blow, is the way to go 😉

  • Re #18.

    Since Edwards has spent his money (and more importantly) his time in Iowa, and is tied there for the lead, I think the money spending argument falls flat. Besides, you can’t total Clinton and Obama and compare them to Edwards, they are running against each other as well.

  • First, I hear Edwards already has a top team of lawyers looking into the problem and we all know how good Edwards is in a courtroom. There are two really big possiblities: Edwards could move to have himself declared the nominee and start rising and spending money earlier then in the convention. The second choice, is have you ever wondered what would happen to his VP’s campaign committee? say he chooses a bill richardson who has not even come close to reaching a spending cap. his campaign committee could still raise and spend money for the cause of the ticket until the race is declared over in august and edwards starts the funds for the general campaign.

  • I’m with RacerX and I would like to add this.

    We bitch and moan about Big Business having their hands in the system and we finally have a candidate and a political climate in which Big Business could be kept at an arms length. Yet we are sitting here worrying about who has more money. WTF ??

    If you don’t go with Edwards because of money, you have absolutely no right to EVER bitch about the corporate coffers pulling the strings. This is the opportunity of a generation.

    This really comes down to asking yourself if you are feed up with the Corporate America task masters ?? Do principle matter to you, or is winning the election more important ??

    I feel dirty even writing this, it’s so god damn republican.

  • My understanding is the DNC can raise and spend as much as it wants to support the nominee through the convention. Didn’t we go through this with Kerry in ’04?

  • The question has been asked often here, as you can imagine and one part of the answer that the campaign has given is that there are two decision points as to public financing: the primary and then, the general. The Edwards campaign will make the decision as to accepting public financing for the general when the Republican nominee makes his decision.

  • I’m hoping Edwards is doing this at a time when the other side of the ticket is so horribly bad that it won’t matter, and ultimately, the money will go to groups supporting Edwards, so I’m not sure it’ll have a major impact other than you won’t hear him approving the message at the end of the commercial.

    However, Republicans are master campaigners and it would be a huge loss if the Democrats just couldn’t afford the organization required to beat them.

  • I’m going to vote for Edwards, and back the 527’s and the party. I’m tired of my own political triangulation, so I’m going to back the best candidate, and do what I can to get him elected. Then I’m going to continue to back publicampaign.org to support clean elections.

  • Unfortunately, Jesse Unruh was right 40 years ago when he said “money is the mother’s milk of politics,” and he is even more right today.

    33 years ago, I worked as senior staff on a campaign here in California for a guy who I still think would have been one of the outstanding politicians of his generation, had we won the primary in that election. We won in Northern California, and lost in Southern California, due to being outspent by a moron candidate whose campaign “theme” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the office he was running for and who was otherwise “content-free”. He went on to an undistinguished career sitting in that office until he decided to retire, accomplishing mostly nothing. This is not what my guy would have done with that victory. But we never got to show the world what we were going to do because we were outspent 3-2 in the primary.

    Money isn’t everything – it’s the only thing. Edwards – who BTW is the guy I would otherwise support – will be silenced at crucial times, will have to depend on 527s for support that his campaign cannot coordinate with (and which Republicans would be watching for even the semblance of coordination like hawks watching for quail), and will be guaranteed to be outspent in the general. We saw how that worked out in 2004. Unfortunately, Edwards has unilaterally disarmed and decided to come to a gunfight with a penknife.

    All of which is a great argument in favor of public financing and no private financing of campaigns. But that’s not the world we are going to be dealing with this year.

  • Have all of you ever heard of the term “whistling past the graveyard”??? I just wish you’d all be more tuneful, because too many of the whistles sound too much like wailing, and too much of the wailing sounds like “we don’t like the rules! why can’t we change them now?” Well, we can change the rules – once we WIN!!

  • Pingback: More Attention Beng Paid To Questions Regarding Edwards Fund Raising - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

  • Barring a Huckabee win, any GOP candidate could count on ample support from donors to squash Edwards. He who offers to do away with the “two Americas” system the MSM has worked so hard for 25+ years to put in place.

    There will be plenty of sound byte ammunition even if he tacks hard to the center and doesn’t utter a progressive word all the way through Novermber 2008. There’s plenty of tape and if America sees him say his “commie-talk” on the Tay-Vay over and over… the perception will be more important than any truth behind the objections we’re sure to see after this comment.

  • Yes, Edwards has a problem, and it is getting worse as it no longer only involves the types of problems with Kos discussed. Edwards’ plans to attempt to circumvent these problems at very least raise further questions as to his integrity as he attacks other Democrats claiming to be holier than anyone else on fund raising. At worse there may be violations of laws regarding coordination between his campaign and 527 groups. Reports on this are just beginning to make the media but are likely to harm Edwards if his campaign continues past Iowa.

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2618

  • I worry about this one too. Maybe it’s fitting that Edwards, were he to win the nomination, would face a very serious risk of being undone by the same forces of money and manipulation that he’s railing against.

    That said, I believe McCain is also taking public funds–and I think he’s going to be the Republican nominee. There might be a lot to recommend two candidates who are publicly funded and have both shown inclinations toward process reform.

  • That said, I believe McCain is also taking public funds

    that was my recollection too. Given McCain recent rise in the polls and in the punditocracy, he could very well win the GOP nomination. If he does, then does Edwards have a problem with public financing?

  • Jacksom, Obama voted present in 130 votes as Illinois State Senator out of 4,000 votes, he didn’t miss 130 out of 153 as a U.S. Senator. As for the issues, you have valid points, but you’re oversimplifying them.

  • The money issue is of no concern to me at all. Edwards has already proven on the campaign trail in Iowa that a vision for America that resonates with voters along with a great candidate trumps the money. Anyone that thinks money is the be all and end all in a presidential contest has forgotten how movements in this country’s history have crushed moneyed interests on a lot less than what Edwards will have. Edwards is already proving to you in Iowa what he can do and he’s doing it with little to no media coverage. We all know that any Dem. nominated will have a hostile national media covering them. Edwards is such a workhorse he’s getting around the national media filter by appealing directly to voters. He’s the best natural campaigner I’ve ever seen. We’d be fools not to nominate him.

  • Well, I promised to look into this, so here’s what I found (not that anyone is paying attention to a post six down from the top!):

    Dems accepting matching funds:
    Edwards
    Dodd
    Biden
    Kucinich

    ‘Thugs accepting matching funds:
    McCain
    Tancredo
    Hunter

    So I was wrong about the huckster, he’s not on matching funds for the primary. At this point, there is no requirement that anyone declare for the general, so it’s not an issue.

    • Comments are closed.