Public / Matching funds

Bush was the first candidate who did not take them (in 2000), and I don't believe he's taking them in 2004. This allowed him to ignore the $45 million spending cap imposed during a critical time period (between nomination and party conventions I believe?).

Howard Dean just announced that he would do the same. Claimed something about fairness and being the only way to compete, and I'm sure it had nothing to do with his fundraising being far ahead of where he thought it would be.

John Kerry and Wes Clark have hedged on whether they would follow suit if Dean took this path. John Kerry was at my worksite on Thursday and from his comments on the issue, I have no doubt he will indeed follow in bypassing the matching funds and accompanying spending limit.

Small amount of background and now we get to the point...Should candidates try to abide by this limit? Is the system really as broken as Bush claimed when he went that route in 2000, or is it just that candidates are now able to raise more funds in a shorter period than they were previously? Is money just another form of free speech and it should not be curtailed, either by law or by voluntary agreements? Would you think less of a candidate for violating the spending limit, or by raising enough funds so as to be poised to break that limit?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Originally Posted by urysohn

or is it just that candidates are now able to raise more funds in a shorter period than they were previously?

This one.

[Griffin 5]

No. The latter. Yes. No.

Spending caps should never be imposed, but I see no problem with a voluntary spending cap that in general favors neither party. And while we're living in fantasy land, I also wouldn't mind owning my own tropical island. Voluntary caps have no chance of ever working in the long run, unless the cap is so large as to be meaningless. As soon as someone can out-fundraise the cap, they will opt out of it unless they are looking at a double digit lead or more. And I agree that mandated spending caps are unconstitutional.

I think you're seeing a wave of people choosing to ignore the cap in the past two elections because (some) candidates can raise a lot more money a lot quicker than in past years. Do I have anything to back that up? No. But when we were in the middle of the 1996 election cycle and people were talking about it like W had a lock on the White House, then you've got the fundraising skids greased pretty well and you can bet he's going to have some mighty full coffers by the end. Dean's got the grassroots thing organized pretty well and Kerry's just looking to bring in his own personal fortune (or rather his wife's), as I understand it. Things have changed for at least the short-term. It's not that the system is any more broken than it has been all along.

And I don't think less of a candidate for being able to raise a lot of money. I do believe in clear disclosure of where those funds came from. And as I recall from the last election Bush was pretty good about that, with detailed lists readily available on his website (I didn't go look at it, so I couldn't say for sure).

[Rockhound]

The whole idea of $1 to the presidential election fund should be abolished. Why should taxpayers be supporting an indivual's job search.

Companies, individuals, unions, grass roots organizations, wacho environmental groups, right wing conspiracy nuts, anti-abortionists and abortionists should all be allowed to contribute as much or as little as they wish. The only law should be that a candidate must disclose every contribution he gets.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Originally Posted by Rockhound

The whole idea of $1 to the presidential election fund should be abolished. Why should taxpayers be supporting an indivual's job search.

It's $3, and has been for awhile. Nevertheless, the "fund" has been decreasing every year -- the candidates aren't the only ones opting out.

[Rockhound]

Originally Posted by Aaron Brachowitz

It's $3, and has been for awhile. Nevertheless, the "fund" has been decreasing every year -- the candidates aren't the only ones opting out.

I guess it's obvious that I don't even look at that box before I check "no".

[Triweasel]

Beacuse of the internet, it will probably be getting easier to access records of who donated what to which candidates, so hopefully we are headed in the right direction with regard to the transparency issue. It's really up to the public whether or not it becomes relevant in terms of changing votes though.

[4sigma]

Originally Posted by gomer tree

This is one of those things that, in my opinion, has no good solution.

Gomer, check out my solution to the exorbitant cost of campaign financing:

http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=20509&start=7

[E. Blackadder]

Why do you think that the amount of money spent campaigning is a problem?

Is the money spent trying to sell soap a problem? Maybe you'd prefer fewer ad dollars spent on beer...