I don't mean to be crass, I do not mean to denigrate campaign finance law, but there is simply no way I could support John Edwards based on his decision to accept public financing, thus placing a cap on the overall amount of money he can spend before the Democratic Convention in late August. And frankly I might actually go further and say that I'd have a problem with him winning the nomination at this point.
Let me first say that I truly believe that Edwards has had a profoundly positive impact on the race for the Democratic nomination. He has been a leader on a wide range of issues and has set the stage for the debate over how to achieve universal healthcare coverage (rather than whether or not to pursue such a plan). So to be clear, these sentiments are not a reflection on Edwards' politics, policies or personality but rather of the strategic choice of his campaign -- a strategic choice that while increasing Edwards' likelihood of success in the primary election by putting him closer to par with the Clinton and Obama in terms of available cash would likely hamper his campaign in the period between clinching the nomination and actually receiving the nomination, a key period of time in the election. (As Todd notes, the campaign is portraying this not as a strategic decision but a principled one that stems directly from his calls to improve the political process in Washington and not to accept contributions from federal lobbyists.)
I simply do not believe that the Democrats can afford to give up on one of the greatest advantages they have going into the 2008 presidential election -- fundraising. By accepting public financing Edwards is limiting the amount of money he can spend pre-Democratic convention to $45 million. That's right, just $45 million through the end of September, a period of time during which the Republican nominee may be spending quite freely (assuming John McCain, who is also accepting public financing in the primary, isn't nominated). Considering, too, that Edwards has already spent several million dollars towards that $45 million mark, that's leaves relatively small amount of money to be spread across 11 months.
Money doesn't mean everything in politics. And even though it's extremely important, there is the potential that contributions to the Democratic National Committee could make up for at least part of the deficit a Democratic nominee accepting public financing in the primary would have against a Republican nominee not accepting public financing in the primary. What's more, Edwards is not pledging to accept public financing in the general election, a move that I would oppose. But this is still a risky proposal -- particularly considering that odds are that a Democratic nominee free of fundraising restrictions would be able to raise significantly more than his or her Republican counterpart. It's so risky, in fact, that it's not one I think is worth taking on, even considering my deep respect for Edwards.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 131 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
