Posted on 07/06/2004 8:57:37 PM PDT by kristinn
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.
Since effectively clinching the Democratic nomination, Kerry has raised more than $30 million per month and a total of more than $180 million. That would easily put him on pace to raise more than $75 million until the election, especially because those Democratic donors who have given the maximum of $2,000 for his primary could contribute the same amount again. He has also raised an average of more than $10 million a month online, meaning it will take less administrative effort to bring in these donations.
In addition, Kerry would be allowed to transfer any remaining funds from the primary into his general-election campaign war chest. His last Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing showed that he had $27.7 million cash on hand while he was spending and raising money at about the same rate. Kerry would be precluded from transferring money to or raising it for his general-election campaign if he accepted public funds, but he could transfer it to the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
Should Kerry decide to opt out, eclipsing $75 million should not be a problem, according to some of his “Vice Chairs,” individuals who raised more than $100,000 for the campaign.
Vice Chair and lobbyist Manuel Ortiz said Kerry’s camp should “take a really hard look at [opting out].” He said Kerry’s decision to opt out of public funding for the primary was one of the best the campaign has made.
At a time when he was running far behind former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Kerry decided to forgo matching funds in order not to be tied to a $45 million primary spending limit. Had he not opted out, Kerry would be lagging $170 million behind Bush in primary funds.
Ortiz said he would support Kerry’s opting out, especially because donors who have maxed out in the primary would be allowed to give money again.
Asked about the possibility of keeping up the fundraising pace if Kerry opts out, John Coale, a Vice Chair and Washington, D.C., attorney, said: “If he wants us to do it, we’ll do it,” adding that it is just a matter of “getting the list of $2,000 donors and getting on the phone again.”
Vice Chair Robert Clifford, an Illinois lawyer, said the Kerry campaign should consider all options but pointed out that not accepting taxpayer funds would “siphon money” from other Democratic candidates and the DNC. “Hard dollars are hard to come by,” he said, and a decision to opt out could have a “downward impact” on the ticket. “We might be putting too many eggs in one basket,” Clifford said.
Tony Coelho, former campaign chairman for Vice President Al Gore, said that there are “legitimate reasons” not to take public funds and that Kerry would eclipse $75 million if he continued raising funds, but added that there could be a “big negative” politically as “pro-[Ralph] 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?”
Coelho said the Kerry campaign, prior to making its decision on whether to opt out, should put pressure on Bush to find out if he plans to forgo public funding. The Bush campaign has said it would accept public funding.
In May, the Kerry campaign hinted that he might delay the date on which he would accept the Democratic nomination in order to keep raising money. He backed away from that plan quickly. At the time, the campaign said it was looking into other options to make up for having to stretch its general-election funds for an additional five weeks.
Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton and now a partner with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, also said that Kerry should consider all options but needs “a public commitment” from Bush regarding the president’s intentions or otherwise should be “very skeptical.”
Scott Stanzel, a Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman, said a public pledge is not needed because the campaign has maintained all along that it will accept public funding and “nothing has changed.”
The Kerry campaign declined to comment for this article.
Please Mr. President, show your hand!
When does Kerry have to make a decision and what if Bush did the same thing?
I don't know an exact date, but it'll have to be by the end of the convention.
Yes, sir; those trial lawyers will now begin to pony up.
And watch for Edwards to resign his seat so Easley can appoint Erskine Bowles so HE can run as an incumbent!
Once again, Kerry needs somebody else -- even a Republican -- to help him make up his mind!
And I think Kerry has to decide by the end of his convention.
If Kerry foregoes public financing, we might as well throw campaign finance laws out the window.
Well, you know he will.
Whoever said, "Talk is cheap" never had to pay for it.
"Yes, sir; those trial lawyers will now begin to pony up."
NOW BEGIN? NOW BEGIN? The trial lawyers have been ponying up for the Dims for years and years.
You watch how much they give now.
We should toss them out anyway - proven failures.
Plus if al Querry opts out of public funding, Nader's total will increase at least 1 percentage point. There are certainly that many Dims emotionally if not intellectually committed to public, ie state, funding of elections.
I doubt that W will give Kerry any cover on this.
In May, the Kerry campaign hinted that he might delay the date on which he would accept the Democratic nomination in order to keep raising money.There was a thread on FR about that; the plan had to do with fundraising limits.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
Does Nader have any chance of qualifying for the taxpayer funding? If both Bush and Kerry spurn it, would he get the whole pot? (The only other parties that have qualified in the last few election cycles are the Libertarians, who refuse to take it on principle, and the Reform Party back when they had Grand Nagus Perot).
There was also a thread about Kerry being almost out of cash in spite of the record breaking fundraising.
Sounds like just the guy to balance the budget. [ /SARCASM ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.