Public financing of elections
Rumor has leaked that Kerry may not formally accept the Democratic Nomination until the Republican convention. The idea goes that by delaying formal acceptance, he also delays the mandatory public finance period of presidential elections. Between the party nominating convention and the general election presidential candidates are capped on how much they can spend.
Both Bush and Kerry have opted out of public financing in the pre-convention stages, and both have blown away prior records for fundraising. Bush is well in the lead on this point, and Kerry by himself has already amassed funds of very impressive size. Both are well over what public financing would have provided.
It is conventional wisdom that the Republican convention was placed where it was in order to give Bush an advantage in fund-raising. Both parties placed the conventions later than usual this time around in order to take advantage of the pre-convention free-for-all. With the Republican convention five weeks after the Democratic one, this would have granted Bush five whole weeks to out fund-raise Kerry. Kerry's move is designed to eliminate this advantage.
If it works, I'm all for it. This will become a regular feature in future presidential elections, I am sure. Plus, we'll end up with the conventions possibly earlier again.
That is, if this doesn't bring public financing back into the political debate. Living in a battleground state, I get to see lots of persuasion aimed at me. This is a new experience for me, as my state has been solidly democratic for a long time. That persuasion costs money.
Both will get around $74M for the post-convention period. Considering that Bush has something like $200M in his warchest right now, that public financing sum looks almost paltry. The fact that presidential campaigns have out stripped the ability of the public to finance them will cause the debate to happen. Either jigger the public finance formula to determine who gets how much, change the dates the financing kicks in, or drop it all together.
The financing was put into place in order to level the playing field. That is a noble goal. The theory is that by unifying the finances of the contenders, the issues and the ability of the candidates to disseminate them would be what sways the election. Not the fact that Candidate Z outspent Candidate Y three to one. It is a well known anecdote that the candidate with more money is much more likely to win, though that is far from universal (Wellstone over Boshwitz, Kerry over Dean). A level playing field gives a superior message an equal chance of getting heard by the people who need to hear it.
I believe that public financing in the presidential campaigns is going to be here to stay, but the system will get tweaked after this cycle. We'll see which way it goes, as that largely depends on who wins the white-house and what their mid-term elections do to congress.
**Update 5/27**
It seems Kerry has announced that he will NOT be delaying acceptance afterall. On the grounds of, "the realities of elections have changed," he plans to appeal to the FEC for a ruling.
Both Bush and Kerry have opted out of public financing in the pre-convention stages, and both have blown away prior records for fundraising. Bush is well in the lead on this point, and Kerry by himself has already amassed funds of very impressive size. Both are well over what public financing would have provided.
It is conventional wisdom that the Republican convention was placed where it was in order to give Bush an advantage in fund-raising. Both parties placed the conventions later than usual this time around in order to take advantage of the pre-convention free-for-all. With the Republican convention five weeks after the Democratic one, this would have granted Bush five whole weeks to out fund-raise Kerry. Kerry's move is designed to eliminate this advantage.
If it works, I'm all for it. This will become a regular feature in future presidential elections, I am sure. Plus, we'll end up with the conventions possibly earlier again.
That is, if this doesn't bring public financing back into the political debate. Living in a battleground state, I get to see lots of persuasion aimed at me. This is a new experience for me, as my state has been solidly democratic for a long time. That persuasion costs money.
Both will get around $74M for the post-convention period. Considering that Bush has something like $200M in his warchest right now, that public financing sum looks almost paltry. The fact that presidential campaigns have out stripped the ability of the public to finance them will cause the debate to happen. Either jigger the public finance formula to determine who gets how much, change the dates the financing kicks in, or drop it all together.
The financing was put into place in order to level the playing field. That is a noble goal. The theory is that by unifying the finances of the contenders, the issues and the ability of the candidates to disseminate them would be what sways the election. Not the fact that Candidate Z outspent Candidate Y three to one. It is a well known anecdote that the candidate with more money is much more likely to win, though that is far from universal (Wellstone over Boshwitz, Kerry over Dean). A level playing field gives a superior message an equal chance of getting heard by the people who need to hear it.
I believe that public financing in the presidential campaigns is going to be here to stay, but the system will get tweaked after this cycle. We'll see which way it goes, as that largely depends on who wins the white-house and what their mid-term elections do to congress.
**Update 5/27**
It seems Kerry has announced that he will NOT be delaying acceptance afterall. On the grounds of, "the realities of elections have changed," he plans to appeal to the FEC for a ruling.
posted by Corwin at 12:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home