Kerry could spurn public financing

[Freddie Stubbs]

Fundraisers insist he can raise more than $75 million
By Klaus Marre


Some Democratic strategists and fundraisers say Sen. John Kerry should seriously consider opting out of public funding in his bid to defeat President Bush this fall.

They maintain that Kerry’s record fundraising efforts in the Democratic presidential primary show that the senator can reap more money through private contributions than through what the government would provide the campaign.

Until now, it has been assumed that both Kerry and Bush would take the $75 million in public funds after they accept their respective nominations. But this places Kerry, who will be nominated five weeks prior to President Bush, at a significant disadvantage. He has to stretch his money for 14 weeks, an average of about $5 million per week, compared to Bush, who has nine weeks, an average of more than $8 million, to spend his public money.

This — and Kerry’s aggressive fundraising operation — is leading some of his most prolific fundraisers and Democratic strategists to suggest that Kerry should take the historic step of forgoing public funds and keep raising money all the way to the Nov. 2 election.

more: http://www.thehill.com/news/070704/cash.aspx

[DarkPhenyx]

1. I agree with this.

It is entirely possible he could pull it off, it would make a great talking point during the election (Kerry is helping ease the burden on our taxes, and definately give him some serious free advertising when it gets coverage as the first candidate to choose this route.

[papau]

8. I agree - indeed the corporate flow to Bush is drying up - and it would

be a great advantage.

:-)

[JI7]

2. with Kerry's early announcement of VP

it will give them a little over 2 weeks to campaign and see how things go. and to see if they can pull off a strategy where they may not need to give up public funding. one important thing is that with edwards as vp it means there are 4 people, kerry edwards and their wives who can be at 4 different places at the same time. they can be together at first, and split up later on to cover more area.

and they also have their kids campaigning for them.

[beyurslf]

3. Could this backfire with 2 wealthy people on the ticket?

I would be all for it though.

[sybylla]

4. Not to mention the fact that Kerry spent loads of time bashing Dean

for the very same thing. The Chimp's campaign will snap that up and put it in ads all over this country calling Kerry a hypocrite and flip-flopper.

I think Kerry already burned that bridge. By voiciferously beating Dean up about it, he's stuck himself with public financing, like it or not.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Kerry already gave up public financing in the primary

If he hadn't, he would probably be getting pounded by negative ads right now with no ability to respond.

[zulchzulu]

6. That was then...this is now...

I think it would work out better to have Kerry to forgo the campaign public financing. As for Chimp portraying the flip-flop schtick, the Bush campaign is already doing that.

I am however absolutely for campaign finance reform in the long run. But this election is too important to give the Chimp an upper hand in any arena.

[Cicero]

7. The other side has 2 wealthy people on their ticket

...hasn't seemed to hurt them none...

Later,

[dolstein]

9. I was thinking the same thing myself

NT

[Lisa0825]

10. I say go for it.

I have only given one small donation so far, as I have been focusing on local candidates (and Kerry's fundraising has been doing great anyway). But I would up the ante if he opts out.

[ronnykmarshall]

12. Look how much we raised already!

I think it's a great idea. We've been flooding Kerry with money in small donations and it's working.

I'm for it and I'll keep pumpin in what I can.

[x_y_no]

11. This might not be a bad idea ...

Kerry is raising money at an amazing clip ... I bet he could do substantially better than $75 million.

[sleipnir]

13. BAD IDEA!!! Here's why...

I was just thinking this as I read the excerpt and then I saw it in the article!!::

"Tony Coelho, former campaign chairman for Al Gore, said that there are “legitimate reasons” not to take public funds, that there could be a “big negative” politically as “pro- Nader people would seize on it.”

Nader has said that the two major parties are too similar and beholden to corporate interests. Opting out and taking millions of additional campaign contributions, even if a lot of the money would come from small online donors, could fuel those type of attacks.

Coelho said Nader’s criticisms on this issue could especially come into play in states such as New Hampshire and Florida, where Nader collected more votes in 2000 than Bush’s margin of victory over Gore.

Others said that if Kerry would opt out, so could Bush and his massive fundraising machine. A Democratic official said, “People forget that every action has an equal or more powerful reaction. Basic high-school chemistry. If Kerry opted out, why wouldn’t Bush?”"


AND:::: Think about how Kerry got so high, from average citizens giving $1k or $2k. That's how you raise the big bucks, but I venture a guess that at best 50% of these donors have the funds to repeat their donations. That's probably true of the smaller donors, like myself, in the $25-$500 range. I know I can't really give that much more money to any candidate this season, I'm already tapped out after giving several hundred to important Congressional races. I personally think it's going to very, very hard going to repeat the influx of dollars.

Needless to say, I think this is a bad idea and it's going to backfire if he doesn't get a significant figure, like over $100 mil.

[x_y_no]

16. Good point ...

about the Nader people.

On further review I've changed my mind. It's a bad idea.

[bushwakker]

17. But what if Kerry takes the $75 mil and Bush doesn't?

Then we're double fucked. My question is at what point does each candidate have to decide? Does JK have to make his decision 5 weeks before AWOL? Imagine a scenario where JK is limited to $75 mil from late July on and where AWOL not only gets to raise and spend freely for the 5 weeks before he accepts the nomination - but then he decides not to take the public $$ and is unlimited in his raising and spending after the convention. A huge disadvantage.

[dsc]

14. and people wonder why so many Dean backers

consider Kerry an unprincipled flip flopper. All the grief that I and other took on this board for Dean opting out of these funds and now Kerry is considering the very same thing and it is just fine. For the record, I think he should, just like I thought delaying the nomination would have been fine. But the rank, and utter hypocricy of both Kerry supporters here and in his campaign is breath taking.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Kerry alread did opt out in the primary

So this would not be a big departure for him.

[dsc]

19. Yeah

after spending days on end painting Dean as an enemy of CFR for doing so and he of course blamed Dean. Again, the decision may well be a wise one but it is also totally hypocritical.

[smb]

15. What Happens To The Money?

If Dubya and Kerry both reject the taxpayer-provided campaign financing, what happens to it? The only others who have any shot of qualifying are the Libertarians (they've reached the threshold a few times, and then refused to take it on principle) and Nader -- is it possible for Ralph to end up with the whole pot?