Let's just state the obvious off the bat -- if Edwards was raising money at the clip of Obama and Clinton, he wouldn't be opting into the public financing system. This is his way of leveling the playing field short term. That the decision comes on the heels of SEIU's decision to not endorse Edwards (or anyone else) at this time makes it particularly suspect. Edwards really needed their cash and boots, but SEIU is apparently still feeling burned from their 2003 Dean endorsement.
In any case, his campaign has released a "strategy memo" explaining the decision. So how do they respond to criticism that this will be unilateral disarmament?
Does this change our strategy?
No. We are on track and moving forward with our four-state strategy, focused on winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. We've said all along that we needed to raise $40 million before Iowa. With public matching funds we are very likely to exceed that goal.
But the key thing to remember is no candidate can buy votes in these states. You have to earn them with bold vision and real ideas. Substance counts a lot more than money in the places where voters can look you in the eye, judge you face to face, and question you in detail about your plans for the country. And when it comes to substance, there's no contest. John has led this race on ideas – from universal health care, to the war in Iraq, to education, global warming and helping American workers. With this decision, he extends his leadership into the critical area of restoring the essence of our democratic government.
John's leadership on issues is precisely why our momentum continues to grow in the states where he has been campaigning. And this growing momentum will carry us through to the general election.
If you can't buy votes, then why does he need the public funds? The strategy is clear -- he didn't have the $40 million they thing they need to win the early states, so they're going to the publicly financed system. The rest is marketing gooblygock to rationalize the decision.
What about the state spending limits?
As a campaign that has always had a plan to win with less money than its rival campaigns, we were already working within a budget that makes it possible to achieve our goals and easily stay within the spending limits. We have studied the numbers extensively, and we are nowhere near exceeding these limits. The FEC rules are much more generous than many seem to understand. For example, staff salaries and staff travel do not count against the state limits – which is perfect for a grassroots campaign. Half of all expenditures in a state don't count against the state limit because they are treated as exempt fundraising costs. And even the total cost of television and radio advertising does not count against the limits for individual states. In short, the spending limits are actually quite manageable, if you're smart about how you spend the money you are allowed to spend
This appears to be about right -- either way they wouldn't have the money to flood those early states. So they weren't likely to bust those limits anyway. Short term, this decision is probably necessary and good. The problem I have with this is what happens if Edwards pulls this thing off and locks this thing down on Feb. 5?
What happens between February 5th and the convention?
Rest assured, we are prepared for this campaign to go the distance. We have a comprehensive campaign spending plan is smart and targeted and based on a strategy to ensure that we not only have enough money on hand to clinch the nomination but also have a reserve to take the fight to the Republican nominee in the spring. To give you just one example, part of this campaign is about restoring the power of the Democratic Party. Since the party can spend money independently of its Presidential nominee, a stronger Democratic Party will be in a position to meet the challenge of waging an effective campaign on behalf of John Edwards and every other Democratic candidate.
That's less than reassuring. What if they end up spending more to wrap up their primary than their current plan indicates. If polling suggests, pre-Feb. 5, that they can win California or Florida with a last-minute push, are they really going to say, "well, we can't spend those millions because of our long-term Summer plan!" Hell no, they'll do whatever they need to do to win, and you couldn't begrudge them that decision.
Except that we end up with a broke or seriously underfunded nominee with six months before the convention. The Edwards campaign argues that the DNC can pick up the slack. And sure, Edwards could funnel money he can't raise to the DNC to act as a proxy. But as we've seen since forever, the RNC always grossly outraises and outspends the DNC. That could change next year, of course. But again, it's a gamble.
And that's the bottom line. If all goes according to plan, then this might not be an abject disaster. But as everyone knows, no battle plans survives contact with the enemy. And I can't personally support a primary candidate that could put us in a difficult position for an entire six months leading up to the fall general election. It's just simply too dangerous.
I love Edwards on the merits. A lot. But not enough to put the White House at risk. So let's see, that leaves me with two tentative choices for my Feb. 5 vote -- an Obama afraid to engage in the politics of substance and clarity, and a Dodd that hasn't shown he can win.
Update: I wasn't clear with that last sentence -- I mean "Dodd hasn't shown he can win the primary". All of the Democrats can win the general, so I'm not worried about that right now.
I totally understand the sentiment that in primaries people should vote their hearts, and I respect that. I just prefer to cast votes that I think will help the candidate I vote for win. And it's not like Dodd has won my "heart", either. If I was a committed supporter, then sure. But I'm not. So who knows. I probably won't make a final determination until I walk into the voting booth.