MyDD :: Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors with Public Financing

Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors with Public Financing

by MassEyesandEars, Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:45:53 PM EST

Yesterday John Edwards dropped a good sized bombshell on the campaign announcing he'll accept public financing. At first, I was a bit taken aback, and somewhat skeptical. But further thought and research I began to change my mind and wonder why other candidates weren't doing this.

One thing that particularly got my attention was how Public Finance will enable John Edwards to counteract the influence of Big Contributors. Because both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have big leads in money from maxed out donors

The following chart is the dollar amounts from Maxed Out Donors, who have given the maximum $2,300, for each candidate taken from OpenSecrets.org:

Hillary Clinton: $44,153,000
Barack Obama: $25,921,000
John Edwards: $9,714,000

So Hillary Clinton has a $34 million dollar Big Contributor advantage and the Barack Obama has a $16 million dollar Big Contributor advantage. The public finance match is about $21 million dollars, meaning Edwards will nearly wipe out the Big Contributor avdantage, while taking the high road.

All of the leading candidates claim to support public finance, Hillary even cites her theoretical support for public finance as an excuse to continue taking lobbyist money. But there is already a public finance system is in place, and while it's not perfect, it has helped clean up the money influence in days since Watergate.

Of course, many bloggers like to play keyboard consultants, myself included, and point to the total spending limits until the convention as a potential liability in the general. But, the Democratic party isn't going to hurt for funds this round, we'll be there to back up the Democratic Party with millions in small donations all next spring and summer. And our true strength (or what should be our true strength) field organizing isn't covered in the limits.

The Republican nominee is likely to emerge broke and beholden (as always) to special interests. John Edwards, should he win, is likely to emerge with money left over, a fightin' fit Democratic Party behind him and far fewer strings attached than any other candidate.

Cross Posted at Boston for Edwards and DailyKos

Tags: John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 90 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors with Public (2.00 / 2)

Enough with the spin.

Edwards is broke , so he has to take public financing belatedly .

There is no principle here , its all about pragmatism about his financial position.

It would probably help him in the primary to close the money gap although I don't know by how much , but he is not going to be seen as too viable of a candidate

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:51:45 PM EST

Re: Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors with Public (2.00 / 3)

Talk about spin.

Edwards just changed the game and Clinton will have to keep explaining why she is selling out.

I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives

by pioneer111 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course,you'd be arguing exactly to the contrary (2.00 / 1)

if Edwards had had HRC's or Obama's money and hence opted out of matching funds.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But the facts are not what you say... (2.00 / 1)

So all you are doing is speculating and impugning someone based on your own prediliction.

I thought you were all about facts.

by citizen53 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's a prediction based on gathered experience. (none / 0)

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:24:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My comment was (none / 0)

not particularly address to poster pioneer111 per se, but rather to the general "logic" employed by some Edwards promoters.

~~~~~~~~

Basically, Edwards is making a choice based on his campaign's financial needs. It's his choice. Fine.

However, I do think that it will impair us in the general election in the event that he gets the nomination. Why? Because in 2004, Kerry had 330mn (vs Bush's 390mn). These numbers don't include additional DNC/RNC money spent.

It's reasonable to predict that the GOP nominee would have at least $500mn in 2008, if not $600mn or more (the next President will determine if we'll have 4 or 6 GOP operatives on the USSC bench or not, and so the stakes remain extraordinarily high), plus the RNC dough.

We can't handicap ourselves given that potential scenario.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My comment was (none / 0)

Campaign has said they will evaluate the situation if and when they get to the general election. If it looks like the Republican nominee won't accept (which will be the case unless it's McCain) and they would be at a competitve disadvantage, they'll opt out.

by MassEyesandEars on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:04:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

in other words he is full of shit (none / 0)

this is really not about the high road at all, but just playing game because his fund raising numbers suck. He figures that once he is the nominee everyone will have no choice but to donate to him since he will be the only game in town.
What a hypocrite.
I have a good friend with deep pockets who is thinking of supporting Edwards if Gore doesn't run. I think I may try talking him out of it. Up to this point I have kept my mouth shut because he has left me alone about Clinton who he doesn't like.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008

by TeresaINPennsylvania on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:01:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: in other words he is full of shit (none / 0)

Where was Kerry at this time?

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: in other words he is full of shit (none / 0)

Getting his ass kicked... great point.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 11:34:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why show that side... (none / 0)

of yourself? Just because you disagree? You're no politcal wizard. Tell your friend to come here and read some of your comments. I suspect he/she may not listen to you much after that.

by citizen53 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:50:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My comment was (2.00 / 1)

Campaign has said they will evaluate the situation if and when they get to the general election. If it looks like the Republican nominee won't accept (which will be the case unless it's McCain) and they would be at a competitve disadvantage, they'll opt out.

If this is true, then how can Edwards be claiming the moral high ground vis-a-vis Clinton? Do his high-minded principles only apply during the primaries?

I like Edwards, but his "principled" stand is hogwash. It's a simple economic necessity, and there's nothing wrong with that. His campaign hasn't been receiving the kind of donations they'd hoped for, to the matching funds are a good solution. But to make it sound like this principled stand just happened to coincide with the facts that he's running out of money is distasteful.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kos talks about the period between (none / 0)

when a presumed nominee emerges and the convention: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/28/ 135434/425

If i'm not mistaken, that would have to up until the GOP convention.

Talking about conventions, we did better than the last time, but still having GOP go second gives them the chance for the "last word" at that stage.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:34:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's also reasonable to assume... (none / 0)

that the Republican nominee will be broke after his own battle to get nominated by a party that seems to want none of the above.

Where's the financial juggernaut? This is not running against Bush in 2004.

To me, your analysis is a bunch of claptrap.

by citizen53 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:46:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's also reasonable to assume... (none / 0)

Let's say the GOP candidate is broke after the nomination. Unlike Edwards, who would be barred from getting new funds until the end of August, the GOPer could immediately get fresh monies and start hitting the airwaves immediately. While Edwards would be blacked out, the GOPer could spend all the money he can muster on whatever he wanted (flyers, TV ads, billboards, etc.)

by georgep on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:53:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's also reasonable to assume... (none / 0)

You are correct here.

And now we have to depend on the DNC, moveon.org, 527, to go after the GOP candidate, indirectly. I mean, we are democrats, and will donate, but again, who knows how any of this will play out by convention time.

by iamready on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:03:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have little doubt that energized Democrats... (none / 0)

will step up.

If nothing else, Edwards's move provides more evidence of the idiocy in front-loading the process.

There's no reason for the first caucuses and primary to occur before March, thus eliminating the so-called dark period.

Just like the money, it is our own need for immediacy that corrupts the process.

by citizen53 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:20:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's also reasonable to assume... (none / 0)

"It's also reasonable to assume that the Republican nominee will be broke after his own battle to get nominated by a party that seems to want none of the above."

Well, then it only takes performing better than "none of the above" to win the GOP nomination. Doesn't it? Or do they have to show they're better than the GOP's great hero George W Bush?

"Where's the financial juggernaut? This is not running against Bush in 2004."

That's at best a weak and flaky theory. Bush raised 200mn in 2000, 400mn in 2004. Stakes for them have never been higher: the GOP could be left completely powerless in Washington, or they could get to nominate 2 or 3 to the USSC over the next 4-8 years. I bet they'll raise plenty of dough, probably in the $500-600mn range.

"To me, your analysis is a bunch of claptrap."

Throwing vacuous smears and slams is your standard sleazy practice.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:35:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I said your analysis... (none / 0)

are you that weak that you must take a critical remark as a smear? If that's so, don't offer any analysis.

If I said nonsense rather than claptrap, would that make you feel better?

You see, you are the one who makes it personal when you call me sleazy, but I suspect you cannot discern the difference.

by citizen53 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:46:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well, technically I called your practice sleazy. (none / 0)

not you the person.

The trick you use is to say just something negative to dismiss what the other person has to say if it doesn't fit your agenda. It isn't hard to reciprocate in kind to that kind a tactics. But, I prefer to point out the tactic.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Spare me... (none / 0)

Your words were directed at me personally. Mine were directed specifically at your analysis.

You took what I said as a personal attack when it obviously was not. I am not surprised at your reaction, or your rationalization now. Another bunch of foolishness.

Sadly, you seem so wedded to your analysis that any criticism of it is perceived as criticism of you.

Let this be clear: I am a grown up. I am not playing games or engaging in tactics. If that is how your mind works, fine.

I should have known better than to engage you.

by citizen53 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you're the one driving the nonsense express (none / 0)

as becomes clear here.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whatever you say, NL... (none / 0)

have a nice weekend. It will bring you 3 days closer to growing up.

by citizen53 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:38:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am adequately 'grown up' to see the games (none / 0)

so-called "grown-ups" play, and call them out as I see them.

"have a nice weekend."

You too. Go ahead and have the "last word" if you'd like, but only if these is no parting shot :)

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:53:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I provide the following (none / 0)

fresh incident (there are many such) of poster citizen53 using personal attacks instead of real arguments: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/29/ 0348/54067#c48

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 05:21:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards (2.00 / 1)

Hillary won't have to explain anything- this "scheme" of his is such an obvious lie and manipulation, almost no one is being fooled by it. Does this man have any integrity or sense of shame? That he would be so dishonest to pretend he is doing something only on principle and use that to smear the other candidates is just disgusting. Edwards is the one who needs to keep explaining - at least until a lot of people start believing him on this- which will be "never."

by reasonwarrior on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

remember this? (none / 0)

Kerry was broke

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:36:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

remember this? (2.00 / 2)

Kerry's not president and Kerry also did not bullshit everyone about taking public funding on principle....but only for the primaries. Supposedly principles are renewable every few months.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008

by TeresaINPennsylvania on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:30:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I won't spin. I will be blunt. (2.00 / 2)

I think it would be totally dumb for the Democrats to cede any financial advantage to the Republicans. Republicans have long held the financial edge and have used it to bludgen Democrats. Well in '08 that is going to be reversed. The Republicans will be at the disadvantage for a change.

Let them feel what it is like to not beable to buy all the air time their hearts desire to attack our candidates as we drop 100s of millions of advertising on them.

Its is going to be great.

If Edwards believed in his campaign and his ability to win he'd do what Kerry did and put his own money on the line. He could afford to write a big check. He just doesn't want to.

by dpANDREWS on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:58:08 PM EST

If Edwards wrote a check (2.00 / 1)

the media would be all over him for it. I thought about it. This is a better move than writing a check.

also the space after the primaries is not as big a deal as Kos says.

Kerry did not accept Primary public financing and still was swiftboated.

both THE DNC and 527s can run UNLIMITED TV at any time

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:00:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Like I said (2.00 / 1)

I'll take the money. Give me a huge financial edge (which Clinton will have, and Obama too should he somehow win) anyday of the week. This election is too important to take chances or to cede advantages.

by dpANDREWS on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

right, so we should all let (2.00 / 1)

19,000-odd people who have maxed out to Hillary and 11,000-odd people who have maxed out to Obama dictate to the country who is a candidate worth considering.

Why even have primary elections? Why not just auction off the nomination to some billionaire who can self-finance?

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards could afford to self finance (none / 0)

He could drop 25 million and have millions to spare.

by dpANDREWS on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

His campaign needs to get (2.00 / 1)

really really creative.

starting with youtubes of hillary saying how public financing is the only way to end the corruption- even mentioning Hsu specifically.

also, biden at at least 2 debates said public financing is the way to go.

finally at one of the debates all the candidates said they support public financing.

of course this move is out of necessity but it draws clearer distinctions with clinton and allows him to bring up the clintons biggest liability fundraising scandals

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:58:26 PM EST

no, you supporters need to get creative. (none / 0)

Your candidate should not be at peril here. We are going into the 4th quarter of this game, before we get to the semi-finals in January.

What happened here? What? His supporters should not have let this happen. If he has 150,000 supporter who contribute 100.00 a piece, that is 15M. Right there.

You guys need to get people engaged and join this campaign. Really. When Obama sends an email his supporters RESPOND. Look at his clock, almost 500,000 donations and 350,000 supporters.

Whoever is his fundraisers did a lousy job, and you supporters need to have a more vocal accordance in his campaign.

After this announcement do you think people are still going to flock and give? They are suspect, right now. Don't know how this will play out. Yes, we all hate money in elections, but this what we have until we demand it gets FIXED.

I am not living in a bubble. I see things the way they are. I wish John Edwards the best, but many are not willing to "risk' if he is the nominee, not having cash and able to fight. That is what it will boil down to.

by iamready on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

fact check (2.00 / 1)

at this point in the campaign he's raised more than anyone except Obama and Hillary in the history of primaries.

this is just a huge amount of money that they never intented to have to raise.

40 million is what they've said they budgeted for, with public financing they can get up to 50 million.

keep in mind it's still very likely Edwards will be ahead of almost all the republicans

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:32:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Poor planning (none / 0)

So Edwards budgeted for 40 million and it's the others' fault because they raised the bar out of his reach by raising so much more?

I'm trying to understand the logic there, but I'm afraid there is none. This is the first time in 80 years that neither party has an incumbent, and everyone was predicting last year that the money race would be enormous.

It sounds to me like the Edwards campaign was simply unprepared. Which isn't exactly a glowing recommendation of his potential skills as an Executive.

by Wonk on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 11:22:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary has never been executive (none / 0)

you could argue she was in charge of Healthcare in 93 but look how miserably she handled that

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 11:12:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, you supporters need to get creative. (none / 0)

I agree. I support Edwards 100% and I agree that supporters - especially in Iowa need to put up some donation pages. I've been told that they arn't comfortable asking for money - but just look at the Iowa money raised for candiates. Pitiful. That means to me that they enjoy being on the receiving end of all this attention.

by mrobinsong on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 05:30:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

kos (2.00 / 1)

Kos penned another diary on this topic, and he officially declares Edwards is no longer a viable option for him personally based on this decision.

http://www.dailykos.com/

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:01:38 PM EST

First time Kos has made sense in a while (2.00 / 1)

by dpANDREWS on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First time Kos has made sense in a while (2.00 / 1)

I believe Edwards' 'conventional'and 'constant' change of heart based on so-called 'principal' has finally caught up even with those bloggers. What a surprise.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:06:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no. people know the clintons (2.00 / 0)

are like the bushes when it comes to loyalty.

what Kos and TPM's leanings are revealed is that they think Obama has no chance and don't want to piss the clintons off

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:10:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos (none / 0)

Actually in his update, Kos says he respects people who are going to be voting for the candidate they like best. His final lines in the post are...

[W]ho knows. I probably won't make a final determination until I walk into the voting booth.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

by Rob in Vermont on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This stunt (none / 0)

should finally drop Edwards in to single digit polls where he belongs after all of these "Holier than thou" stunts.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008

by TeresaINPennsylvania on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:46:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors (2.00 / 1)

Do you read polls? A 'populist' who is not really popular?

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:19:17 PM EST

Re: Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors (none / 0)

Politico has the CNN video up with candy crowley where he said he was going to take public financing throughout the campaign.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors (none / 0)

Trippi again ,

He told me earlier this year (prior to signing onto the Edwards campaign) that opting for the limits of public financing would leave any nominee "flat broke like Mike Dukakis -- getting the living shit kicked out of him all summer long."

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:25:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors (2.00 / 1)

They are really digging the graveyard deeper and deeper. Hilarious.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:31:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors (none / 0)

Trippi is only an adviser to the Edwards campaign. He isn't clairvoyant or always right.

by jsamuel on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors (2.00 / 2)

you've got that right. But my comments were about a different circumstance -- George Bush was a sitting President with his pioneers and rangers piling up cash waiting for the Democratic nominee. Not the same this time. They can't raise much on the other side and they are going go have a protracted primary of their own. But time will tell.

by Joe Trippi on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 11:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Newsflash (2.00 / 1)

that was aired yesterday, blogged yesterday, and clarified on this blog and dKos and clarifed again on politico that , his general position is the same as Obama's that that clip is not accurate...

today

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 907/Boniors_memo_Rely_on_the_party.html

yesterday

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/27/1910 39/160

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9 /27/17732/2702

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:27:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Counters (none / 0)

Enough with the nonsense maxed-out donors equal special interests. There are an awful lot of good progressive, pro-environment, anti-War democrats who are willing to make a real commitment toward changing this government and are willing to make the $2300 investment for the good of our society just as they give that type of money toward charity. The idea that the "high road" does not run right past these people's houses is not just spin, it borders on prejudicial. Edwards simply has not been able to inspire enough people to compete.

by Piuma on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:27:47 PM EST

here's some of them (2.00 / 1)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB11902530 5222133413.html

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's exactly what I mean (2.00 / 0)

when I said borders on prejudice. That does not represent the majority, and that type of playing on the edge of the rules exists within the Edwards supporters as well. He had a major problem with that during the last election and I am sure if you look closely at his Fortress donations you will find some problems there. It's like the one overly-agressive Obama supporter who tried to get around his rules against lobbyists. None of it means Edwards or Obama do not mean what they say when they say they ask you to attest to certain conditions before making a donation including the money did not come from someone else. On the whole, the people donating $2300 are good people who should be praised, not slighted.

by Piuma on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

did it ever occur (2.00 / 0)

to you that 99% of the population cannot afford 2300$

you're missing the whole point.

Donor A: net worth 10 million

gives 2300 to campaign Z
gives 5000 to PAC1 for candidate Z
gives 5000 to PAC2 for party of candidateZ
gives 5000 to PAC3 for candidate Z
gives 5000 to Party of candidate Z

vs. most americans

Donor B: net worth 200,000

gives 200$ of hard earned money directly to candidate X

see the difference?

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 04:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did it ever occur (none / 0)

Donor C:

Annual salary $130,000. 2006 gives $2500 to a school in Camden, New Jersey which teaches at-risk kids. 2007 gives $2300 to Barack Obama to support his campaign.

See the difference?

by Piuma on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:31:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did it ever occur (2.00 / 1)

To put a finer edge on Tarheel's point anyone earning $130,000 is not the typical American.

A quick poke around on google uncovers this:

In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.[3] The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) in the year 2006 was $26,036.[4] In the year 2005, there were approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States. 19.01% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,[5] while another 12.7% fell below the federal poverty threshold[6] while the bottom 20% earned less than $23,202.[7]

Less than 20% of all households in America make more than $100,000 a year. You sure that's the number you want to bandy about as being representative of the typical person? The median household income in 2006 was less than $50,000. After taxes and living expenses it doesn't seem like $2,300 donations to candidates is terribly likely, don't you agree? That's the typical American household - with the typical individual earning around $26,000, which also doesn't go far.

Point being that most people can't afford $2,300 donations. 90% of Edwards' donations were $100 or less, which is much more in line with what a regular person could afford to donate, don't you think?

by Quinton on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:27:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did it ever occur (none / 0)

No one ever said it was the typical American. My point is the top end being at $2300 is not a figure which accessible to only the super rich and the "special interests". There are a lot of hard working, extremely hard working, individuals and families who make enough money and are willing to make that type of donation. To assume and to characterize maxed-out donors as only the super rich who are trying to gain some type of advantage through their donation is a distortion of the real picture. Sure that description might fit some, but it is not the norm, and not enough credit nor respect is given to ALL the people willing put their money where politics are. It is not just the small donor who has honor.

by Piuma on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:57:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

u missed my point (2.00 / 0)

ideally democracy should be available to everyone not just people who can write 2300$$ checks,

130K is well above most americans

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: u missed my point (none / 0)

Democracy is available to everyone, the $2300 donor and the $23 donor. My point is they both get the same access and there is no moral difference. The $2300 donor is not the evil bad guy buying special treatment. The $23 donor is not on a "higher road". The money limit is pretty reasonable and a candidate for national office should be able to appeal to all the income brackets defined by a maximum contribution of $2300. My point is you are trying to demonize those contributors and demonize candidates who also speak to people making $130,000 which is a whole different world than people with a net worth of 10 million, or a candidate raking in contributions from PACs and Lobbyists.

by Piuma on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 02:03:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you are so full of it (none / 0)

you are just making up nonsense now. There are a lot of people who are not millionaires but do max out to candidates. They are good people, liberals. There lots of people who make decent money and care enough about politics, who are liberals and yes they hope to buy a little influence for things like gay marriage and better health care and getting out of Iraq and all kinds of stuff, so they max out to candidates. Or they just want the candidate they think can win, or to elect the one who is best on women's issues...etc...
So just stop tarheel. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008

by TeresaINPennsylvania on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 11:54:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you almost (2.00 / 0)

need a fulltime person just to correct the media.

the reports of the CNN bus say "Durham, North Carolina"

WRONG "Durham, New Hampshire"

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:00:22 PM EST

DesMoinesRegister (2.00 / 1)

Another bad day for Edwards on DesMoinesRegister's frontpage.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20070928/NEWS09/7092 8023/1001&lead=1

Obama's campaign pounced on Edwards' decision to participate in the public-financing system, which reportedly would limit Edwards to spending $1.5 million in Iowa on such things as advertising.

"This is - maybe desperate is too strong a word - but this is a long-ball strategy to salvage his campaign in Iowa," said John Norris, an Iowa adviser to Obama. "We all know that is the extent of his presidential campaign: Iowa. If he doesn't have the resources to win here, then he's done. And he's not attracting the contributions to stay competitive here. ... You can cloak this in all the good-government rhetoric you want, but that's not what this is about."

Norris, who ran John Kerry's successful 2004 caucus campaign, said Edwards' decision could "handcuff" his campaign and the party if he becomes the nominee.

The effective end of the primary season probably will be in February, he said, but the convention isn't until August. In between those times, Norris said, Edwards would not be able to spend any money beyond the primary-season caps. Meanwhile, the Republican nominee could continue to raise money and spend it hammering away at the Democrats, he said.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:48:16 PM EST

Re: Civic city news today(Clinton organization) (2.00 / 1)

It takes more than money:

Hillary Clinton's deputy state director and caucus manager Angelique Pirozzi has left the Iowa effort to pursue "other opportunities," Skinny hears. Pirozzi's departure comes on the heels of the campaign's former state director JoDee Winterhof getting demoted in favor of Teresa Vilmain, who consulted for Tom Vilsack's short-lived presidential campaign. Clinton people tell Skinny that at least a half dozen field organizers -- the supposedly smiling faces of the campaign -- have also left recently. Skinny isn't sure what to make of the revolving door.

Their organization is looking pretty shaky.

by BDM on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:36:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Civic city news today(Clinton organization) (none / 0)

Don't kid yourself. Teresa Vilmain is the best Iowa campaign manager, period. She got her start at age 20 as a paid staffer on Ted Kennedy's presidential run in 1980. She ran Dukakis' campaign in Iowa in 1988 at age 28. She's done statewide campaigns for two Iowa Senators (Culver and Harkin) and Governor Vilsack. She's worked on both Clinton presidential campaigns and did Iowa for Gore in 2000. She was everybody's first choice, but signed up with Vilsack for 2008. When Vilsack dropped out and endorsed Hillary, Clinton grabbed Vilmain to run Iowa.

From the Washington Post back in June:

"If you can get Teresa Vilmain, you do it," said John Norris, a longtime Democratic strategist in Iowa who is not working for a campaign now. "You do whatever it takes to get [her] on board."

Norris was Kerry's Iowa manager in 2004. His wife is running Obama's campaign this year.

Kerry's Iowa chair, Jerry Crawford, is working as an Iowa strategist for Clinton with Vilsack.

Nobody is going to match Clinton's organization in this campaign. Hillary has the pick of the best, because the lure of working for the frontrunner to be the 44th President of the United States is powerful. The top stategists and managers know Clinton is serious and they know that electing the first female President is historic.

by hwc on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 01:36:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

if you're politically honest (none / 0)

Obama's camp seems to know they're an underdog, as much as Edwards I'd argue and they are a little to eager on this.

Hillary's camp issued "no comment"...

Obama's team is making a mistake (politically) jumping on Edwards IMHO, Hillary is doing the right thing by staying silent.

Especially cause Obama was the first to accept public financing for the general, (If the GOP does it) which seems to undermine his teams argument

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 11:15:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama advisor (2.00 / 1)

Obama's campaign pounced on Edwards' decision to participate in the public-financing system, which reportedly would limit Edwards to spending $1.5 million in Iowa on such things as advertising.

Norris, who ran John Kerry's successful 2004 caucus campaign, said Edwards' decision could "handcuff" his campaign and the party if he becomes the nominee.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:48:38 PM EST

Re: (2.00 / 2)

Look at it realistically. This is now the 5th account that I have seen from a known Edwards supporter who pretty much states the same thing: "At first I was taken aback and skeptical." Now, that is a current Edwards supporter, mind you. Already in his supporter group, ready to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now, think about how this plays out amongst current non-supporters of Edwards? Taken aback and skeptical for most, no doubt. But likely with a not so happy conclusion. The skeptical feeling will remain. Edwards must grow his support, and this made it so much harder, because many people who weren't already with Edwards will see this as a strike against him.

by georgep on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 05:53:25 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

Someone needs to stop "Freaky Thirsty" and his gratuitous abuse of the ratings system. Despicable tactics used by him/her, troll-rating every post he personally does not like.

by georgep on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:28:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's organization in IA (2.00 / 1)

You need more than money:

Civic Union newspaper today a central Iowa publication:

With changes like this it puts the organizing effort behind.

by BDM on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:41:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's organization in IA (none / 0)

Winterhoff is now a Senior Stategist for the Clinton campaign. She was a Washington based operative who agreed to move to Iowa for Clinton, but when the opportunity to grab Teresa Vilmain from Vilsack's campaign presented itself, the Clinton campaign moved fast and moved Winterhoff to a national role.

This all took place back in May or June.

by hwc on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 01:44:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's organization in IA (none / 0)

How about the dozen or more field organizer's who have recently left the campaign.

Their organization is not very tight and has leaks.

When you start losing field organizers who have built up relations within the community and they leave then this hurts the organization and campaign.

by BDM on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:14:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm (none / 0)

What do you do when you are not raising cash and the Union that you have been aggressively courting withholds it's endorsement until after they see the 3Q Fundraising?

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 06:10:32 PM EST

Re: Hmm (none / 0)

Has Edwards taken PAC or Corporate money? what about Hillary or Obama? Could this be the difference? If so, wouldn't supporting a candidate based mainly on how much money they raised be the wrong thing to do?

Money does not mean true support. If people with lesser means support Edwards and people like rupert murdoch support hillary, then I pick Edwards.

So what is the answer on this. Who is getting the most corporate and PASC money? Who is getting the most "republican" money?

Who is getting the most Union and We The People money?

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:43:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (1.33 / 3)

To answer your question, John Edwards has been taking every dollar of corporate money he can get his hands on.

The problem is that it is hard to raise corporate money when you are on the campaign trail every day promising to "go after those people" and kill American business.

by hwc on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:57:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (2.00 / 1)

stop lying hwc. Edwards do not take Corporate Lobbyist or PAC monies, as well as, Obama.

by iamready on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:08:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (2.00 / 1)

'kill American business' wow. more and more of your conservatism comes out as time goes on. Nothing Edwards has proposed would kill anything. It may result in a relatively small number of people being slightly less rich when they have to pay a fairer share of taxes (higher capital gains and dividend rate for those that make over $200,000 a year to bring the tax rate for those that live off investment income into line with those who receive theirs from earned income). His universal health care plan would signifigantly lower costs for US businesses and make them more competitive globally. Nice sprouting of conservative nonsense though.

by Quinton on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (2.00 / 1)

what a bunch of bullshit.

Lets see... supporting unions and supporting We The People is "killing American business"... right? What a fucking JOKE!

The neo-cons, Nafta, profit before country, wal-mart... these are things that KILL American business and American WORKERS and the American MIDDLE CLASS!

Wake Up! See what is real and not a fantasy.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 02:27:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

advice (2.00 / 1)

Advice to Edwards Campaign:

When Edwards wins the nominee, they can immediately retract this decision citing the vicicious attacks from republicans.

Another flip flop will solve his problem.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:35:03 PM EST

Edwards Counters with Desperation Move (none / 0)

The public finance match is about $21 million dollars, meaning Edwards will nearly wipe out the Big Contributor avdantage, while taking the high road.

That's the maximum possible match. The federal dollars only match the first $250 from each donor. To get there, Edwards would have to have 84,000 donors who have given him $250 or more.

As of right now, he qualified for about $6 million in matching funds. He hopes to qualify for a total of $10 million by January.

He's going the public route for a measly $6 to $10 million. That shows how broke his campaign is.

by hwc on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:50:44 PM EST

Re: Edwards Counters with Desperation Move (none / 0)

That's not what his campaign says. They say they hope to get $10 million in federal funds in January, giving them a war chest of $20 million.

by hwc on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:13:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards campaign called for a contribution. (2.00 / 3)

I generally don't like to respond to phonecall requests so didn't contribute. After reading this diary and Kos' comments doubting Edwards' ability to raise funds, even though many think he is the best candidate to reflect the views of the grassroots, I ponied up $1000. If he doesn't win, at least I voted my conscience which Markos seems reluctant to do.

by lobo charlie on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:56:16 PM EST

Re: Edwards campaign called for a contribution. (2.00 / 2)

Right On!

I wish I could afford that.

I am just one of the "We The People". I will be donating to Edwards this weekend. May only be able to give $20.00 bucks. Anyone want to match me?

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 02:31:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors with Public (none / 0)

At it's core, this diary is dishonest. By using the total raised it tries to make out that Edwards is less reliant on maxed-out donors and more the man of the small donor. That simply is not the case. Following the link the diarist is apparently hoping no one clicks, reveals the following:

Percentage of money raised from Maxed-out donors:

Clinton: 70%
Obama: 44%
Edwards: 42%

Percentage of money raised from $200 or less donors:

Clinton: 9%
Obama: 28%
Edwards: 23%

If it wasn't for Edwards raising over 40% of his money from Maxed-Out donors his total would really be pathetic.

by Piuma on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 02:29:51 PM EST

Re: Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors with Public (none / 0)

It's funny how Hillary has a Big Donor-Small Donor ratio of 70-9, while Obama's is 44-28, and yet, according to Hillary supporters here at MyDD, Obama's supporters are elitists and Hillary represents the rank and file.

Can't really wrap my mind around it but that's the F'd up reality here at MyDD...

by Will Graham on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 05:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Counters Maxed Out Donors with Public (none / 0)

It's also F'ed up when people call Clinton a "whore," "bitch," "liar," say she is following "marching orders" from Bush and Liberman and imply she is laughing about the suffering children in Iraq. It is F'ed up when people (not you) on this site resort to the same tactics the far right uses on our candidates that they themself denounce. It is F'ed up when people resort to misrepresentations and outright lies. It is F'ed up and it has to stop.

I just had to say that.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 05:16:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.