How Dean can forego spending caps...

By Aziz P. -
... and avoid the flip-flop charge, courtesy Liberal Oasis:

The reality is, George Bush is planning to game the system.

Bush Inc. has said the campaign won’t abide by spending caps during the primary, but will during the general election.

(The Federal Election Commission distributes matching funds for the primary, and a straight-up grant for each eligible major-party candidate in the general election.)

The Bush plan sounds innocuous, since he doesn’t face anyone significant in the primary. But the trick is the primary period doesn’t end until the candidate is officially nominated. And the RNC pushed the nomination all the way to Sept. 2, past the traditional August date for the incumbent party.

Since Bush is aiming to raise upwards of $200M for the "primary," he can dump all of that during the winter, spring and summer.

Then, scoop up about $74M of taxpayer cash in the general election grant.

That’s a blatant bastardization of the system (though it produces no dismay, only jaw-dropping awe, from the political press corps.)

That gives any Dem, who can pull it off, legit grounds to opt-out of the public system that he or she supports in theory. Yet Dean was so adamant about public financing before. How can he escape being called a hypocrite? He’s made the Bush argument already. But if it looks like he’s trying to buy the primary, that argument won’t wash.

Here’s how he could solve the conundrum.

Formally opt-out of the primary matching funds system, so he can fundraise at will. But informally announce that he will not spend more than $44M – the estimated spending cap – in the actual primary contest. That way, he can’t be accused of unfairly drowning his Dem opponents in campaign cash, and violating the principle of public financing.

But he would be able to spend freely in the period between when he might effectively win the nomination, and technically accept it at the Dem convention in late July. That wouldn’t come close to buying the election. It’s just trying to keep pace with Bush Inc., trying to make it a fair fight.

And Dean, in particular, would still have the authenticity of being fueled primarily by small donors (while two-thirds of Bush donors have given the $2K max). Furthermore, the $44M move would also have a side benefit of imposing some spending discipline on the campaign during the primary.


I'm convinced. Bush is gaming the system, embracing the moneyed elites. Dean is sowing the grassroots, and imposing spending discipline on his campaign. Honor counts.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Conservatism's shari'a, liberalism's ijtihad

By Aziz P. -
An interesting meta-debate by intellectual conservatives over conservatism's future is playing out. It started with David Frum's Waterloo essay, which led to his political excommunication. Julian Sanchez observed that this represented an epistemic closing of the conservative mind , a thesis that was validated by the retribution visited upon Jim Manzi for daring to suggest that conservatives will achieve more persuasion by using honest, strong arguments instead of weak, emotional ones. All of this has led John Quiggin at Crooked Timber to argue most wisely that as conservatism implodes, liberalism needs to find its own rationale that is more than just "not conservatism". Quiggin has a list of priorities for the liberal movement to address, and closes with the general plea, ...the left has to stand for something more than keeping the existing order afloat with incremental improvements. We need to offer the hope of a better world as an alternative to the angry tribali...
Read more

A fair solution to Jerusalem

By Aziz P. -
I remember reading one of the books by Tom Clancy in which Jack Ryan was credited with coming up with a solution for Middle East peace which was pointedly never actually detailed in the novel. It was just a way to give his character some foreign policy cred, but ended up like that mysterious suitcase in Pulp Fiction. I couldn't help but be reminded of that, though, when I read former New York mayor Ed Koch's innovative solution to resolving the status of Jerusalem . Instead of putting the hot-button issue of Jerusalem last on the agenda, the issue should be addressed first. If the Jerusalem question is solved, everything else should fall into place more easily. I believe there is a way to keep Jerusalem unified. I am talking not only of the old walled city, which is a very small part of the city of Jerusalem, but the whole city, east, west, north and south. [...] My suggestion is to situate the new Palestinian capital in that part of East Jerusalem that is occupied overwhelming...
Read more