As everyone now knows, John Kerry announced yesterday that he would not delay accepting the Dem nomination. I’m a little disappointed. I know the media was pounding him for the very possibility, but I considered it a very clever — and effective — idea.
If you’re just getting in on this story, Noam Scheiber explained it well the other day, after the Washington Post’s David Broder slammed Kerry for even considering a delay.
[This] means that formally accepting the Democratic nomination five weeks before Bush accepts the Republican nomination would force Kerry to spread $75 million in public funds across three months, while Bush would have to make the same amount last for only two months, and would be able to raise and spend private contributions during the five-week period in between the Democratic and Republican conventions. What part of that arrangement strikes Broder as fair? Or, to put it differently, if Kerry accepts the nomination in late July, he will only be able to spend about $25 million per month during each of the last three months of the campaign (despite his demonstrated ability to nearly match Bush on the private fundraising front), whereas Bush could end up spending close to $40 million per month. Does putting it that way make it sound any more fair?
Despite the obvious financial drawback, Kerry has decided to follow tradition and keep the DNC a “nominating” convention. This does not mean, however, that the Kerry campaign is satisfied with the existing system, which puts the challenger at an inherent disadvantage.
In fact, Kerry isn’t delaying the nomination process, but he is considering a different challenge to the campaign financing system.
As the Boston Globe reported today, Kerry “may request a rules change from the Federal Election Commission to help him compete in the final phase of his quest for the White House.”
One idea under consideration within the Kerry campaign is petitioning the FEC for permission to continue raising and spending private funds until Bush receives his federal allotment in early September, according to campaign spokesman Michael Meehan. The FEC has not indicated how it would rule on Kerry’s campaign spending options. But Republicans are almost certain to oppose a rules change in the midst of a campaign.
If nothing else, the Kerry “trial balloon” about delaying the formal nomination has put this issue on the front burner. It has nothing to do with partisanship; it’s just an inherent flaw in the system that punishes the challenging party, whichever party that may be.
There’s simply no reason to give the incumbent this kind of advantage. It’s worse this year because the Bush campaign pushed the RNC back a week to try and tie it to the 9/11 anniversary, but it’s a systemic problem in either case.
It’s unlikely the FEC will move on this quickly, but I’m glad Kerry has brought the issue to the forefront. It’s in both parties’ interests to fix this flaw.