This concept has been floating around the tubes for a while, but to the best of my knowledge this is the first time it has really picked up steam within the establishment media. Should Iowa (or New Hampshire or other states, for that matter) hold their contest to select delegates to the presidential nominating conventions in the calendar year 2007, the presidential candidates may be able to double up on their $2,300 primary election checks from wealthy donors. Jim Kuhnhenn has a write up of this for the AP.

A wrinkle in federal law could open a tempting new money cycle for 2007 that would allow candidates to solicit donors who have already given the maximum ["if Iowa pushes its presidential caucus into December of this year"].

[...]

Under federal law, candidates can raise up to $2,300 from donors for primary elections and another $2,300 for the general election. Because the presidential nominating process requires numerous state primaries and caucuses, federal law states: "All elections held in any calendar year for the office of the president of the United States (except for the general election for such office) shall be considered to be one election."

In short, a strict reading of the law means the contribution limits apply only to primaries and caucuses held in 2008. If a state moves its primary or caucus to 2007, it could mean a whole new cycle.

This seems to me to be a somewhat scary proposition for the Democrats. The Republican presidential candidates have had a terrible time getting small dollar donations to supplement their $2,300 checks (which they have been more or less able to bring in), as a result of a number of things -- a depressed base, a slate of unimpressive candidates, etc. Allowing the Republican candidates to go back to the well again with their wealthiest donors would effectively be throwing them a lifeline, allowing them to bring in money that otherwise would not be available at their disposal.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have shown little trouble raising money from small donors this cycle. No doubt the Democrats also have had little trouble raising money in amounts of $2,300, either. But a good portion of their overall fundraising advantage this year over the Republican candidates has been the ability to tap into the excited and motivated Democratic base.

So if the floodgates are opened up and candidates from both parties are able to bring in millions of more dollars, the Democrats' overall fundraising advantage could be diminished significantly, which while not hurting the party today could in the period between the time each party effectively chooses their nominee (February or March or whenever) and the party conventions. It's not necessarily the case that this would hurt the Democrats, but it's possibly the case -- and a possibility that probably isn't worth risking.

And beyond the broader partisan potentials of this move, the ability to double up on $2,300 checks could have a couple interesting effects at the same time. In the Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama level, it seems likely that the latter's fundraising advantage over the former would largely be mitigated in this instance, for although he, too, raises significant amounts of dollars from $2,300 donors, a good deal of his fundraising lead comes from smaller donors, both those online and offline. At the same time, such a situation may ironically help some of the lower-tier candidates -- Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, in particular, though also perhaps Bill Richardson and even John Edwards -- because of their relatively deep well of high-dollar donors that they might be able to tap once again to keep their campaigns moving forward.

On this level I don't see anything inherently bad -- but I do think that it's the wrong way to go. Democrats are doing well, at least in part, right now because they have had to really turn to the grassroots in order to succeed. Getting more and more people to give even $10 and knock on 10 doors does an enormous amount to help build the party and win elections. Enabling candidates to rely more heavily than before on more traditional forms of money could set back the process of focusing on the grassroots. For that reason, alone, it just would not be worth it to see any state choosing its delegates before January 1.