Markos, I respect you so much but today I must disagree with you about John Edwards and public financing. I understand your point that if they aren't giving to Edwards the funds will be diverted to the DNC.
You know more than anyone this will still occur during a Clinton, Obama, Dodd administration too. No matter who we nominate, there will be 527s and $28,500 donations to the DNC.
We all praise public financing, until someone of power accepts it. At that point everyone goes crazy and cries that we can't win. While Kos has been the most analytical behind his claims, he is still wrong.
Many of you saw his diary Money in Politics. It makes this bold claim:
What has the better chance of buying influence? Bundled $2,300 contributions, or bundled $28,500 ones? Or even better yet, a million dollar check to a 527 run by insider party operatives?
If Obama or Clinton get nominated, suddenly all the millionaires are going to withold their checks for 527s? No.
If Obama or Clinton get nominated, suddenly all the millionaires are going to withold their checks to the DNC? No.
Their influence will always be there! The best way to curb their attempt to buy out to system is to limit the money they give to the candidate themself. If John Edwards is our nominee, you better believe that no CEO in his right mind is going to write a $28,500 check to the DNC and pressure them to push corporate tax cuts.
That's why I passionately believe in candidates funded by small-dollar contributions, beholden to people, not big dollar donors.
Markos, look no further. I'm sure you have seen the numbers from John Edwards:
Ninety-seven percent of this quarter's contributions were in amounts of $250 or under
I don't argue with a 97%. And for Kos who made the claim that Edwards hasn't raised much money.. thats only true in comparison to Hillary and Obama. Edwards is on track to raise more than any other Democratic primary candidate from 2004 back.