NY Times: Shrinking From Campaign Reform

[Larkspur]

NY Times understands Dean's dilemna. This is a good Editorial

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/07/opinion/07FRI2.html

t is historic, not just regrettable, that former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont thinks that he had best drop out of the publicly subsidized campaign financing system and reach for bigger money through private donations. That would be a grave blow by a Democratic front-runner to a system that has served well since the Watergate days, when political corruption by special-interest money scandalized the nation into reform.

The move, which Dr. Dean hopes will be endorsed by his Internet supporters, is sadly understandable. The Democratic primary rivals are exhausting their resources in attacking one another, under public financing rules that limit their spending in the primaries to $45 million each. President Bush, meanwhile, is amassing a war chest that could reach $200 million in private donations. He can spend that money as he chooses even though he has no challenger to his nomination for re-election.
<SNIP>

While his retreat is understandable, Dr. Dean should show his commitment to principle by pledging right now that he will voluntarily spend no more than the $45 million limit in campaigning against other Democrats, and save the rest of his private funds for challenging Mr. Bush. We have never had a political candidate in recent times who coupled the ability to raise large sums with a willingness to show restraint to support the concept of public financing. Dr. Dean could and should be that man.

[eyesroll]

1. Wow, I like that idea a lot. eom

[Tatiana]

2. Good editorial.

And the author makes a good suggestion. The majority of any of the Democratic candidates' money (not just Dean) should be spent attacking Bush, not each other.

[fabius]

3. My letter to NYT on this subject

Howard Dean and Campaign Financing

(maybe they'll publish it...)

To the Editors:

Regarding your editorial of November 7, 2000, it is indeed regrettable that Howard Dean of Vermont must drop out of the publicly subsidized campaign financing system.

What is even more regrettable is that the Bush-Rove machine will amass a $200 million war chest to run against no primary opposition. The only possible use Bush can have for this money is to smear the Democratic candidate.

If Dean, Kerry, or any Democratic candidate feels morally obligated to accept the $45 million limit under these circumstances, we might as well give up the election charade and hand over the keys of the USA to the corporations and the military-industrial complex.

If two million people feel that a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is important enough to give Dean $100 apiece, then we can beat the Bush-Rove machine at its own game. Only if they are beaten will the Republicans ever support meaningful campaign finance reform.