Should Kerry / Edwards Opt Out of Public Funding?
By Byron LaMasters
The Hill says that John Kerry is considering opting out of public funding for the general election (also noted on Political Wire). Basically, Kerry will receive $75 Million after he is nominated for the general election campaign after he receives the nomination, but is not allowed to raise or spend any other money. By opting out, Kerry could raise and spend as much as he would like. There's two questions here. Could Kerry / Edwards raise over $75 Million between the convention and election day? Yes. Should Kerry / Edwards then deny public funding to be able to spend more, though? That's a much more difficult question, and my gut instinct says no. Here's why.
Based on John Kerry's fundraising since March, I believe that it is realistic to suggest that in the three (and change) months between the convention and election day, Kerry / Edwards could raise another $100-$150 Million. This would increase the amount that Kerry / Edwards could spend in the general election campaign by 33-100%, which would easily neutralize any Bush advantage generated from the late GOP convention. Still, the idea doesn't make sense. Say that Kerry / Edwards is able to raise $100 Million between the convention and election day. That is effectively $400 Democratic dollars being spent to generate an additional $100 in campaign funds for Kerry. Even if Kerry / Edwards raises $150 Million after the convention - it would be a truly astonishing figure - but it would also mean that every $200 raised would only generate an extra $100 in campaign funds. Wouldn't it make more sense for Kerry to take the $75 Million and then urge his supporters to give money to the DNC? Or to state parties in swing states? Or to Congressional candidates (especially those in swing states)? By opting out of the $75 Million in public funds, Kerry / Edwards would probably be able to raise more hard money for their campaign, but is it really worth another $25-50 Million, when $50-100 could be raised for nearly the same purpose?
Pandagon also advises Kerry / Edwards not to opt out for a different reason. Television ads this year really haven't been all that effective. There's no smoking gun with either Bush or Kerry. There's no Willie Horton, there's no Daisy. $75 Million gives Kerry / Edwards more than enough money to run an effective television campaign through election day, while state parties and the DNC can probably handle most of the GOTV.
My DD takes the other side. He thinks it's a no-brainer, and that Democrats could spin it as an issue of fiscal responsibility. Kerry / Edwards could boast that they're saving taxpayers $75 Million, while Bush / Cheney is just playing the same tired old game of Republican borrow and spend economics.
Posted by Byron LaMasters at July 8, 2004 02:11 AM
| TrackBack
What you neglect to mention is that a massive fundraising drive would force Kerry/Edwards off the campaign trail in battleground states in order to raise cash in Democratic stronghold states like NY and California where the money is.
Frankly I don't think any amount of money would be worth it. They have a limited number of days to campaign from the convention onwards and they need to be out there where it matters. They need to barnstorm for very critical swing state vote. The time for the $1000 plate dinners with the NY and Hollywood elite is over.