Howard Dean desperately wants to get out of his original pledge of staying within the public financing system. It’s hard to blame him. He has proven himself to be an extraordinarily good fundraiser and sees an opportunity to excel by forgoing federal matching funds.
At this point, the Dean campaign wouldn’t hesitate to become the first Democratic presidential candidate to abandon the public-financing system, were it not for Dean’s earlier pledge not to.
So the campaign came up with a clever plan: ask Dean’s supporters to decide for him.
Last night, the Dean campaign sent an email to supporters, explaining that Dean wants their help in deciding “whether we will decline federal matching funds or accept them.”
Of course, it’s not as if the campaign was presenting the option as an equal choice. To hear Dean tell it, staying within the current financing system would doom the campaign’s prospects.
“[S]oon our opportunity to compete dollar-for-dollar against George Bush’s army of special interests may be gone,” Dean’s email said. “If we accept federal matching funds, our spending will be capped at $45 million — and the greatest grassroots movement in the history of presidential politics will be stopped from raising money almost immediately and will reach the spending limit well before the end of the primaries. We will not have any funding until the Democratic convention at the end of July.
“[T]he federal matching funds law, though it was meant to provide an incentive for ordinary Americans to participate in the funding of our elections, is doing the opposite of what it intended,” Dean added. “It could end up punishing a movement that has raised more from ordinary Americans than any campaign in history, while rewarding the campaign that has blatantly abused both the spirit and intent of campaign finance, selling off piece after piece of our country.”
With that neutral and objectively-phrased announcement, the Dean campaign is asking backers to “vote” on whether Dean opts-out of the public-financing system or not.
It is, to be sure, an ingenious idea. When the campaign announces that Dean has flip-flopped on the issue, they’ll say, “It wasn’t our idea! Our supporters decided our path!”
In reality, however, Dean is shamelessly turning his back on his previous commitment.
Earlier this year, for example, Dean promised to raise hell if any of the other candidates decided to abandon spending limits and skip public financing.
“It will be a huge issue,” Dean said in March. “I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform…. [I’ve] always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in.”
Four months later, on June 7, Dean told to the Federal Election Commission that he was going to abide by spending limits in the primaries.
Then, all of a sudden, Dean started raising some money. Lots of it. In August, Dean said his campaign was “exploring” the possibility of opting out of the public financing system because of his success in raising money. He said he “didn’t remember” making earlier promises to the contrary and said his campaign was free to “change [its] mind.”
And now that Dean’s enjoyed a record-breaking $15 million-quarter, he sees no need to stay in a campaign financing system that’s holding him back.
This is actually the second time Dean has flip-flopped on this issue; he did the same thing as governor of Vermont. In 1997, Dean helped create a system whereby statewide candidates would agree to a spending cap and participate in public financing. At the time, Dean vowed that the bill would “change the way campaigns are run” in Vermont. When it came time for Dean to run for re-election in 2000 under the campaign finance system he helped create, Dean rejected public financing and exceeded the spending cap by 300 percent.
And now he’s doing it again.
Allowing supporters to “vote” on the decision is a nice gimmick, but it’s also a bit of a joke. Dean wants to break his pledge but he wants to use his base as cover.
Let’s be clear: As a policy matter, I don’t blame Dean for wanting to opt out of the system. I’d do the same thing. Bush never even considered staying within the campaign limits in 2000 and he certainly won’t abide by them in 2004. The system literally punishes presidential candidates who have the ability to raise competitive sums of money. I’ve heard rumors that John Kerry and Wesley Clark may consider abandoning the system as well. I don’t blame any of them.
I do, however, blame Dean for holding one position when he’s a struggling newcomer and a different position when he’s leading the pack. I also think it’s a shame he doesn’t have the courage to admit that he’s changed his mind and now wants to shift the responsibility to his campaign’s supporters to try and shield himself from criticism.