The Way Things Stand Now

The way things stand now, as of 12/31/07 the 2008 Democratic candidates for president have raised the following:

2008 Democratic Presidential Fundraising (Millions)

Rank  Candidate   Raised    Spent   Burn Rate

1     Clinton     $ 118.3   $80.4    68.0%

2     Obama       $ 103.8   $85.2    82.1%

3     Edwards     $ 44.3    $36.5    82.4%

4     Richardson  $ 23.7    $21.9    92.4%

5     Dodd        $ 16.5    $14.1    85.5%

6     Biden       $ 11.4    $9.5     83.3%

7     Kucinich    $ 3.9     $3.6     92.3%
   Total   $321.9    $251.2   78.0%

As of December 31, 2007 over a quarter of a billion dollars had been spent on the Democratic primary competition alone.  To put this into perspective, somewhere around 18 million people voted in the 2004 Democratic primaries.  Even assumimg that this were doubled, that would only produce 34 million Democratic primary voters.

So that means that just using the money raised by December, the Democratic primary candidates are going to have spent around $7.39 for every vote they earn in the primary.  

And in all likelihood, before the Democratic National Convention, we are likely to see this race top half a billion dollars raised. In that case we're talking around $15 for every primary vote recieved. This is an extremely wasteful use of money, and further prevent the development of grassroots political organization that would serve the party well in winning races at all levels, because it privileges candidates who can afford to but TV and Radio time.  It bastardizes the political process, and it ensures that the voices of millions of Americans looking for serious change: for universal healthcare, for tax reform that makes the wealthy pay their way, and action on the grace trade deficit facing this country are drowned out by the monotonous bleating of are self appointed economic elites on social issues that most Americans frankly don't give a damn about.

Laying Out the Facts

I was never a Deaniac.  Honestly, I looked on them with a certain contempt because it seemed like many of them didn't understand that even though the fight for change was new to them, many of us have been at it for a long time.  The problem isn't Bush.  What he's been able to get away with is only a symptom of a deeper illness, the domination of those in America who live by their work by those in America who live by their wealth.  And the divide grows deeper all the time.  

Nowhere is this process more apparent than in the political process, where the influence of money gives our socially liberal elites an oversized voice that allows them to perpetuate a system that benefits them by exploiting Americans who work for a living.  The maximum donation that an individual is $2300 for the primary and $2300 for the general elections, for a total maximum contribution of $4600 to a presidential hopeful.

Again, lets place this in perspective.

A single mother working a full time job on minimum wage will make $12,168 in a year.  For her, the maximum $4600 donation represents almost half, 37.8% of her annual income.  And remember that this is gross income, not including the money taken out by regressive state taxes, and the 7% FICA tax we all pay regardless of income.  Obviously, this just isn't going to happen.

In contrast for the top 5% of Americans, their expected household income annual income is $157,176.  For them the maximum $4600 donation represents 2.9% of their pretax income.  Maxing out is a realistic possibility for them.  

The prospects for the average American household (median) lie somewhere in between with an income of $44,389 with an average of 1.35 earners in the house.  So corrected to represent an average income from which an individual may draw to donate to a campaign, you get $32,880 per working member in the median household.  For this person, the $4600 maximum donation represents 14% of their annual income.  This again is not a realistic possibility.

It doesn't have to be this way.

What follows is my plan to address the corrosive influence of money within the Democratic party, and to rejuvenate our party, and reconnect it with its natural base in the working class.

First, we can't expect change from the federal govnernment.  What we can expect is change from within our party.  For this reason, we must limit our demands to the primary season.  Unilateral disarmament in the general election is not a realistic possiblity.  Acting to restore the voice of working people within the Democratic party through limiting the influence of money is.

Second, the means by which we may achieve our end are the same as those that have ensured that the voters of Michigan and Florida will not have delegates at the Democratic convention.  It is the role of the national party to decide the rules that will guide the selection of plegded delegates.  Thus, in order to limit the influence of money, candidates who choose to break the rules established by the party should know that they will be penalized through the loss of convention delegates.

Third, I have a simple proposition.  In order for the Democratic party to be the party of working people, the volume of cash from big money contributors must no be so large so as to drown out the voices of working Americans.  In order to accomplish this there must be a limit to the amount that an individual may give to a candidate.  For this I propose a 2% rule.  That being that 2% of the annual income for an individuals working full time year round on minimum wage be the top donation allowed. At this time, this 2% would impose a $243 cap on donations to Democratic candidates for the primary season.

Fourth,  spending limits are needed in order to ratchet down the amount of money spent on intraparty fighting, and to lower the utility of spending on TV and radio ads relative to grassroots organizing.  For this I propose a simple rule.  Campaign spending will be limited to $1 for each vote primary vote cast in the previous cycle.  Thus, suppposing that 34 million votes are cast in this cycle, that would limit candidate spending to $34 million in the 2012 primary cycle.  This would extend to the state level so that in Iowa where around 240,000 people voted in 2008, spending would be limited to $240,000.  This is going to make it impossible for candidates to bombard the state with TV and radio ads.

Fifth, candidates would be forbidden from collecting general campaign donations.  Instead, they would be permitted to direct their donors to make donations in the FEC permitted amount of $2300 for the general election cycle to a fund held by the DNC to be disbursed to the eventual nominee.  This way, the eventual nominee will walk into the general election with a warchest that will allow them to compete with the Reublican nominee, and the argument that a primary must serve as a test of a candidates fundraising prowess is blunted.  As well it strengthens the party.

Finally, any candidate who breaks either the fundraising or spending limits imposed in this plan need to know that they will not get the nomination.  For this, I propose that each violation of the contribution limits that persists 90 days after notification by the DNC be penalized with the loss of a single pledged delegate.  For spending violations, candidate would be penalized with a 5% reduction of delegates from a state for each 1% spending overage.

Conclusion

I've tried to be brief here, but I feel that what I've written explains my ideas fully.  And more than anything else, I look at this as an open letter to Chairman Dean and the members of the DNC.  It's time for this change.  And, yes, this is a realistic plan.  

Given the $243 limit I forsee, this would require that candidates take in around 140,000 donations of this size in order to reach $34 million spending cap.  Further, federal matching funds match all contributions up to $250 on a dollar for dollar basis.  Meaning that a candidate would only have to gather only 70,000 donations of $243, however this would require the candidate to accept spending limits on general election expenditures as well as I understand it.

I believe that if working Americans are confronted with a situation in which they believe that their $50 or $100 donation will make a significant difference, that they will be far more willing to both donate, and to participate in the primary process.  This helps correct the corrupting influence that money has in drowning out the voices of working Americans who can't afford to max out at $4600.  This is a plan that can work, and in the end, the money saved on intraparty fighting in the primaries can be better spent on winning general elections.