Dean may switch tactics (trying to meet Bush's $170m)

[MKSheppard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Nov5.html

Dean May Opt Out Of Public Financing
Move Would Sidestep Limits on Spending

By Dan Balz and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 6, 2003; Page A01

NEW YORK, Nov. 5 -- Former Vermont governor Howard Dean made an impassioned case here Wednesday that he should abandon public financing of his presidential campaign -- a strategic gamble that he could raise more money than he would give up in public money and still win the Democratic nomination.




Dean appealed to his supporters for permission to become the first Democrat ever to reject public funding, charging that President Bush is "selling our democracy" to wealthy contributors. He said the only way to compete against the $170 million Bush plans to raise is to forgo public financing, as Bush has done, and try to raise an equivalent amount from an army of small contributors. Those who accept public money must limit total spending on primary elections to $45 million.

Dean's appeal came as he sought to extricate himself from a damaging controversy over his statement last Friday that he wanted to be "the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." At the beginning of his speech, he acknowledged that he was "clumsy" in his language and said that "I deeply regret the pain that I may have caused" to people who were offended.

The decision over public financing comes in what now shapes up as a crucial 10 days in the battle for the Democratic nomination, with Dean hoping to win the endorsement Thursday of the Service Employees International Union, the largest union in the AFL- CIO. He is also competing for the endorsement of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, which plans to meet next Wednesday to try to decide on the matter. Endorsements of either of those unions would give Dean additional momentum, and his rivals are mounting a strong campaign to block them.

The taxpayer-financed system, established after the Watergate scandal, encourages small donations by matching them with federal money but imposes spending limits on candidates during the primaries.

Many Democrats, including Dean, have come to believe that acceptance of public financing has turned into a financial trap in light of Bush's decision to reject the money and the limits. A candidate who takes public money in the primaries faces the prospect of being outspent by Bush by 4 to 1 or more between now and early September 2004, when Bush is formally nominated.

Dean said Bush's financial advantage will be most significant after the Democrats have settled their nomination battle but before the party's national convention in July. During that period, he said, a Democrat who abides by spending limits probably will have to spend the $45 million by early March to win and will be prohibited from spending any more. "A Democratic nominee with no money is exactly what the Bush campaign is hoping for," Dean said. "Ours is the only campaign with a chance to defend itself in those five months."

At least two other candidates, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, are considering opting out of public financing.

By walking away from public financing, Dean would give himself the potential to raise and spend well beyond the $45 million limit, but the estimated $18.6 million in federal matching money that he would forfeit on Jan. 1, 2004, might be desperately needed in the caucuses and primaries of January and February -- unless his supporters quickly sent more contributions.

"How much can you replace? We haven't any idea," said Tricia Enright, Dean's spokeswoman. "It's like going up an 18-story building and jumping out and hoping the American people will catch you. But that's the only way you can beat George Bush."

Another potential liability -- that Common Cause and other campaign finance advocacy groups would attack anyone who rejects public money -- diminished significantly Wednesday as most of those groups indicated they would give Dean a pass and accept the argument that a Democrat may have to avoid spending limits to compete with Bush.

A number of the proponents of campaign finance regulation did, however, warn that a Dean rejection of public money, in combination with Bush's decision to opt out of the system, probably would doom presidential public financing in future elections unless it were made far more attractive. "It means the death of the system unless it is changed in a meaningful way," said Larry Noble, head of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Dean, who last spring talked about the importance of the public financing system, is positioned to turn his back on that system because of the extraordinary success he has had raising $25 million this year. In the most recent quarter, he set a Democratic record by raising $14.8 million, more than even President Bill Clinton raised in any quarter in 1995.

Dean said he would poll his roughly 600,000 supporters by e-mail Thursday and Friday and would abide by their decision. An announcement will come Saturday. Dean will ask his supporters not only whether he should opt out of public financing but also to pledge to contribute more to his campaign if the answer is yes.

A spokesman for Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said the poll is just "political gimmickry." Lieberman said, "The buck stops with him -- and not his supporters." Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said that any candidate who rejects public financing "will directly contradict our ability to legitimately advocate for additional reforms."




Dean cast the funding issue in general election terms on Wednesday, but opting out of the public financing system has significant implications as well for the Democratic nomination battle. By freeing himself of federally imposed national and state spending limits, Dean could financially overwhelm his Democratic rivals in many of the early states.

Public Citizen, a liberal advocacy group, called on Dean to limit his spending to the public financing $45 million until the nomination fight is over, which could be as early as February or March, and spend more after that if he wins to be competitive with Bush. The Public Citizen proposal was promoted to the media by competing campaigns, but officials of the Dean campaign declined to respond. "I don't want to react to that until we actually have the vote," Enright said.

"Money buys a defense in depth beyond New Hampshire," said Mike Murphy, a strategist for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in his primary campaign against Bush in 2000. "Dean is trying to combine McCain's insurgent appeal with Bush's huge resource advantage. It makes him very formidable."

That was the thrust of Dean's message here Wednesday. "This is the first campaign in decades to be able to give the people a choice between a president who awards tax giveaways and government contracts to political contributors and a candidate who is owned by nobody except you, the American people," he said to a small but enthusiastic audience at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art.

Dean, both in an e-mail to supporters late Tuesday and in Wednesday's speech, left little doubt that he wants his backers to approve getting out of the public financing system, saying a corrupted system of money in politics has created an imbalance that its creators had never intended. But he also warned of the risk of opting out. "That will place the burden of funding the campaign entirely on our supporters," he said, "but with the knowledge that this may be the only way to win this election and ultimately reform our political system."

Dean's competitors for the Democratic nomination sought to make his expected decision to reject public financing as politically costly as possible, distributing copies of the past commitments Dean has made to public financing.

On March 7, according to the Associated Press, Dean not only pledged to accept public financing but also vowed to make it an issue if any of his Democratic opponents decided to bow out of that system. "It will be a huge issue," AP quoted Dean as saying. "I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform."

Edsall reported from Washington.

[Iceberg]

Complicating the problem is that the Dean campaign would have to cease fundraising now in order to comply with the fundraising requirements of Federal matching funds, and the campaign would be unable to spend any money at all from March until the Republican National Convention in September, while President Bush's campaign would be free to spend all the money it wants.

[Col. Crackpot]

so let me get this straight..... Dean want's to rescue the nation from Bush's cash rich special interest groups by jumping through a loophole in election law and sucking even more money from his own cash rich special interest groups? This is progress?

[MKSheppard]

Shhh.....don't point that out to Iceberg!

[Worlds Spanner]

so let me get this straight..... Dean want's to rescue the nation from Bush's cash rich special interest groups by jumping through a loophole in election law and sucking even more money from his own cash rich special interest groups? This is progress?

Mostly, but you're gorgetting that a) his "special interest groups" are the people who are making individual contributions and b) Dean is a good guy! He said he'd fix it so he'll fix it. Politicians keep their promises! Right? RIGHT?!

I'm so moving to Antarctica.

[Col. Crackpot]

so let me get this straight..... Dean want's to rescue the nation from Bush's cash rich special interest groups by jumping through a loophole in election law and sucking even more money from his own cash rich special interest groups? This is progress?

Mostly, but you're gorgetting that a) his "special interest groups" are the people who are making individual contributions and b) Dean is a good guy! He said he'd fix it so he'll fix it. Politicians keep their promises! Right? RIGHT?!

I'm so moving to Antarctica.

but we forget, leftward leaning PAC's always fight for the poor working folks while the rightward leaning ones are evil bigoted robber barons who seek to force the poor into indentured servitude! so by that dean must be doing the right thing!

[Iceberg]

Here's an interesting page for you:

http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/pml1_sql_PR ... ?DoFn=2004

Of especial interest for Dean:

Total received: $25,387,497
From individuals: $25,327,099

All but about $50,000 of Dr. Dean's campaign contributions have come from individual donors, not from PACs, party money or Dean's own pocket. That's 99.7% of the money he's taken in.

[Joe]

Hate to break it to you, chief, but 98 percent of Bush's money thus far has come from individual contributions as well:

Total Receipts: $84,583,768
Individual contributions: $82,843,770

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential ... =N00008072

[Iceberg]

Just out of curiosity, why the hell does Bush need hundreds of millions of dollars to run an unopposed primary campaign, anyway?

[Col. Crackpot]

Here's an interesting page for you:

http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/pml1_sql_PR ... ?DoFn=2004

Of especial interest for Dean:

Total received: $25,387,497
From individuals: $25,327,099

All but about $50,000 of Dr. Dean's campaign contributions have come from individual donors, not from PACs, party money or Dean's own pocket. That's 99.7% of the money he's taken in.

the hard 'money limit' is $2000 per individual. if that money was truly coming from working folks Dean wouldn't need to worry about the limit because the average Joe Sixpack can't afford to donate anywhere near the maximum. No, Dean wants unrestricted access to millionare lefty ideologues, that is what this is about. Dean want's to be able to accept hundred thousand dollar checks from the likes of Barbra Streisand, Tim Robbins etc.... all while masquerading as the candidate for the common man! BULL-SHIT.

[Joe]

Just out of curiosity, why the hell does Bush need hundreds of millions of dollars to run an unopposed primary campaign, anyway?

He doesn't. He's only got 85 million.

[MKSheppard]

If I won the lottery, I'd buy Dean off to the tune of a few dozen million

[Iceberg]

Here's an interesting page for you:

http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/pml1_sql_PR ... ?DoFn=2004

Of especial interest for Dean:

Total received: $25,387,497
From individuals: $25,327,099

All but about $50,000 of Dr. Dean's campaign contributions have come from individual donors, not from PACs, party money or Dean's own pocket. That's 99.7% of the money he's taken in.

the hard 'money limit' is $2000 per individual.

And the average individual donation is far below that limit. Your point is? You're just whining because Dr. Dean has only $15,500 of PAC money (compared to $1.5 million for Bush, hundreds of thousands for Lieberman and Gephardt, and $50,000 for Kerry; plus Kerry has his wife's sizable finances to fall back on).

if that money was truly coming from working folks Dean wouldn't need to worry about the limit because the average Joe Sixpack can't afford to donate anywhere near the maximum. No, Dean wants unrestricted access to millionaire lefty ideologues, that is what this is about.

Baseless accusation with no proof whatsoever. Pull your head out of your ass.

Dean want's to be able to accept hundred thousand dollar checks from the likes of Barbra Streisand, Tim Robbins etc.... all while masquerading as the candidate for the common man! BULL-SHIT.

You're a cocktard. The $2,000 per donor limit is a fact regardless of whether a candidate opts into the public-financing limitations or not. Whether or not Dr. Dean opts out of public financing has NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on big-money checks from celebrities. Mr. Bush's "pioneers" and "rangers" are just corrupt businessassholes who gave $2,000 checks to their employees and told those employees to donate said $2,000 checks to Bush's campaign. I have the same amount of proof that you do, prove me wrong, shithead.

[Iceberg]

Just out of curiosity, why the hell does Bush need hundreds of millions of dollars to run an unopposed primary campaign, anyway?

He doesn't. He's only got 85 million.

And his stated goal is $200 million for the primary season. That's hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Sea Skimmer]

And his stated goal is $200 million for the primary season. That's hundreds of millions of dollars.

The advertising will help him later on for the actual election, though I'm wondering if the goal is merely to raise that money during the primaries, or if its actually all intended to be spent during the primaries as well.

[Joe]

And his stated goal is $200 million for the primary season. That's hundreds of millions of dollars.

The advertising will help him later on for the actual election, though I'm wondering if the goal is merely to raise that money during the primaries, or if its actually all intended to be spent during the primaries as well.

Absolutely not. There's no possible way he could spend 200 million dollars during the primaries.

[z020898]

The issue for Dean is not the limits imposed on individual donations, despite Col. Crackpot's claim to the contrary. The issue is the fact that Federal Matching funds also limit the amount you can spend in the primaries. According to the article that started this debate that amount is $45 million. Dean expects to spend that much to beat the other democrats. He would then be unable to spend any more money until after the convention. While Bush blankets the country with radio and TV adds. Dean needs to be out of these limits to be competitive. This assumes that money matters which may not be the case for people who will make up their minds before the conventions occur.

[MKSheppard]

and it's official now

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031 ... -1901r.htm

Dean campaign says no to public funding


By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean will abandon the public campaign- financing system and the spending limits that accompany it, he said yesterday, with the hope that his private money-raising prowess will help him capture the nomination and defeat President Bush.

His historic decision, which the former Vermont governor announced during a speech in his home state, sets the stage for a possible presidential race with candidates from both major parties for the first time forgoing the Watergate-era funding system.

Claiming that he supports the public- financing system, Mr. Dean said, "The unabashed actions of [Mr. Bush] to thwart our democratic process with a flood of special-interest money have forced us to abandon a broken system."

Mr. Dean is the first Democratic candidate to reject public campaign funding since its institution in the 1970s.

Mr. Bush has said he will also opt out of the public-financing system, as he did in the 2000 Republican primaries when he raised a record sum of more than $100 million.

The system, created after the Watergate scandal 30 years ago in an effort to reduce presidential candidates' dependence on big campaign donors, is financed by taxpayers who have the option on their income-tax returns of directing $3 to it.

Candidates who register to accept the public funding in the primaries can receive as much as $18.7 million in taxpayer money. However, they can spend only up to about $45 million.

A candidate who opts out of the system forfeits the public money but benefits because he no longer is restricted by how much money he can spend.

Mr. Dean may have been prompted in his decision by the flood of campaign contributions he's received over the Internet. In the latest three months of fundraising, through September, he surprised his rivals by garnering a record $14.8 million for the time period. In just over one week, he raised nearly $5 million through his Web site.

Campaign aides said supporters have donated or pledged $5.3 million in the past two days. With about $25 million raised through September, Mr. Dean will need a continual flood of contributions to make up for the $18.7 million in government money he is rejecting.

Like Mr. Bush in his primaries, Mr. Dean now can spend unlimited amounts on his campaign for the nomination and, if he receives the nomination, through the summer before the general election season starts.

Two of the other Democratic hopefuls, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, have been considering whether to drop out of the system, but Mr. Dean is the first to make the decision official.

Mr. Dean said he decided to abandon public financing, based on the overwhelming opinion of more than 600,000 of his supporters, whom he'd asked to vote by e-mail, telephone or postal mail by Friday on whether he should opt out of the system.

However, some of his rivals yesterday criticized Mr. Dean, who is a proponent of campaign-finance reform, for what they said was a flip- flop.

"Three months ago, Governor Dean was saying what a Democratic principle it is to have campaign-finance reform and what a big issue it would be if someone stepped outside," Mr. Kerry said in Concord, N.H.

"That's when he wasn't raising a lot of money. Now, Mr. Change- Your-Opinion-for-Expediency is saying, 'Oh, I'm now able to raise money. Maybe we should get out of the system.' I think somewhere along the line, fundamental principles are important," Mr. Kerry said.

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri said that Mr. Dean abandoned the public-financing system because he hoped to outspend the other Democratic candidates in the presidential primaries and capture the party's nomination.

"Forget all of the gimmicks and rationalizations, the plain truth is that Howard Dean wants to outspend his opponents in the early states and has, therefore, violated his pledge to stay within the public-financing system," Mr. Gephardt's campaign said in a prepared statement. "Just like President Bush, Howard Dean has effectively undermined campaign-finance laws for his own personal, opportunistic political advantage."

However, the former Vermont governor defended his decision.

"Our campaign has not been talk of campaign-finance reform; it has been actual reform," Mr. Dean said. "Over 200,000 people have given an average of $77 to bring us here, and they have now overwhelmingly refused to be intimidated by George Bush and his cronies."

•This article is based in part on wire service reports.

[Joe]

"That's when he wasn't raising a lot of money. Now, Mr. Change- Your-Opinion-for-Expediency is saying, 'Oh, I'm now able to raise money. Maybe we should get out of the system.' I think somewhere along the line, fundamental principles are important," Mr. Kerry said.

John Kerry has got some HUGE FUCKING BALLS if he thinks he has any right to call someone "Mr. Change-Your-Opinion-for-Expediency."

[SirNitram]

On the other tip of the tentacle, all the talk in the world about finance reform means percisely dick if you can't get to the Big Chair to make it happen. On the plus side, it means I don't have to donate three bucks come tax time.

I'm just confused, though. Why is it bad to opt out of government financing? Dean's not leeching off voter money now; his money comes from these people who are tossing him seventy-seven bucks or so. Maybe it's an American thing...

[Glocksman]

"That's when he wasn't raising a lot of money. Now, Mr. Change- Your-Opinion-for-Expediency is saying, 'Oh, I'm now able to raise money. Maybe we should get out of the system.' I think somewhere along the line, fundamental principles are important," Mr. Kerry said.

John Kerry has got some HUGE FUCKING BALLS if he thinks he has any right to call someone "Mr. Change-Your-Opinion-for-Expediency."

I wouldn't call it a case of huge balls. Chutzpah is what I call it.