Here's a little thought amidst the "controversy" of Dean opting out of public financing (a damn good decision I wish all the top candidates would follow).
In order to take federal funds, candidates have to agree with a hard spending cap for each primary state. In Iowa, it is $1.3 million. In New Hampshire, $729,600.
Campaigns will jump through all sorts of hoops to avoid hitting those caps, such as shacking up campaign workers across the border in neighboring states, etc. And if a campaign exceeds those limits? They get slapped with a fine. After the race is over. Big deal.
Given the must-win status of Iowa for Gephardt and New Hampshire for Kerry, does anyone really think they would've adhered to those caps? Chances are slight. That would limit Gephardt's Iowa expenditures to less than $1 million for the rest of the campaign (he's spent about $360K already) and limit Kerry's NH expenditures to less than $500K (he's already spent about $240K).
It's doubtful with the do-or-die nature of those states that either candidate would abide by the limits. Adhering to the cap would be poor campaign strategy. Paying the fine or opting out would be best.
Which points to the utter stupidity of the public financing system. For one, it hasn't kept pace with inflation from its Watergate-era roots. And it doesn't (and can't) force candidates from all parties to abide by the caps.
But aside from that, why the state spending caps? Why not let each candidate spend the money how he or she sees fit?
Kerry looks poised to shrug off the spending cap. Good for him, and he gets to use Dean for cover. (He's done it before, in his Senate race against Bill Weld.)
Of course, Dean used George Bush legitimately as cover, but that seems to have gotten lost in the noise. Ultimately, Bush is the enemy, and unilaterally disarming against his machine is sheer madness.
Criticize Dean all you want. But if you want your guy to be the nominee and still compete head-on against Bush, you better hope he ditches the spending caps as well.