Ever since John Edwards announced his decision to accept matching funds during the primary, many in the blogosphere have embraced the meme that Edwards had damaged his campaign beyond repair. The distilled essence of their argument: by accepting the spending cap that comes with public financing, Edwards was essentially unilaterally disarming.
In this diary, I will show that this argument is false. Here are my key points:
- The spending cap is for the primary only. When Edwards becomes the nominee, the spending cap disappears.
- During the primary, the DNC can spend $19 million in coordination with Edwards, and an unlimited amount on its own. Edwards can help lead fundraising efforts for the DNC.
- If the DNC chooses, it can change its bylaws and give Edwards the nomination after the last primary, in early June.
- In political campaigns, the endgame is what counts. Money spent during the summer months is much less valuable than you think.
First: The spending cap is for the primary only. When Edwards becomes the nominee, the spending cap disappears.
This is an obvious point, but it bears repeating. Many people seem to be under the impression that Edwards has agreed to spending limits that last through general. This is false. As soon as he becomes the official nominee of the Democratic Party, the spending caps are history. Currently, he would become the nominee at the convention, in late August. (There is an alternative, noted below.)
Second: During the primary, the DNC can spend $19 million in coordination with Edwards, and an unlimited amount on its own. Edwards can help lead fundraising efforts for the DNC.
Campaign finance law allows the DNC to run two different types of advertisements in the presidential campaign -- coordinated communications, and uncoordinated communications. Coordinated communications have a cap, while uncooridinated communications have no cap.
The definition of a coordinated communication is established by the FEC, which has a three prong test. If a communication meets at least one of the standards for all three prongs, it is coordinated. Since all of the DNC's presidential advertising meet two of the three prongs (payment and content).
Essentially, the conduct prong establishes that if the Edwards campaign in any way collaborates with the DNC in the production of an ad (including using the same third party vendors or consultants), the ad is a coordinated communication.
However, if the DNC creates its own ad without any collaboration with the Edwards campaign, these ads are not coordinated.
Obviously, coordinated communications are more valuable. That's why there is a limit on coordinated expenditures. This limit equals: ( Voting Age Population * $0.02 * a COLA). For 2008, this will be about $19 million.
It's important to note that the DNC can share the cost of ads with the Edwards campaign. Effectively, this means Edwards could combine whatever money he has left to spend on advertising with the DNC's $19 million.
It's also important to remember that there is no limit on what the DNC spends on field activity, or on uncoordinated advertising.
Edwards, of course, can help the DNC raise money to pay for these efforts.
Finally, I should also note that there is no limit on the uncoordinated activities of 527s.
Third: If the DNC chooses, it can change its charter and bylaws and give Edwards the nomination after the last primary, in early June.
To some, this is a controversial proposal. I first suggested it here and Kos floated it here. At the time, we all agreed that under current law and current the current DNC charter and bylaws, Edwards would have to wait until the DNC to accept the nomination.
However, as you can see in the charter and bylaws, the DNC could change the charter and bylaws to formally grant Edwards the nomination before the convention.
They would need 60 days to make such a change. So, for example, if by March it were clear that Edwards was the nominee, they could change the charter and bylaws and formally name him the nominee of the party, after the last primary in early June. (They could do it earlier, but that would be unseemly.)
The DNC would continue, and Edwards could name his vice presidential candidate there, and the party could still debate and adopt its platform there. Not much would change, actually. Personally, I think it seems like a pretty smart thing to do.
Fourth: In political campaigns, the endgame is what counts. Money spent during the summer months is much less valuable than you think. Kerry ran far more ads than Bush, but his messaging was bad. He was severely outspent in the general, and as a result, lost.
When you hear accusations that Edwards is giving the GOP a $125 million advantage, it sounds pretty scary. The reality, however, is that such accusations are hyperbole.
First, even if Edwards isn't given the nomination in June, he and the DNC can still coordinate at least $19 million worth of advertising.
Sure, that's less than the $75 million on advertising spent by John Kerry in 2004 from April through the convention.
But we all remember what happened with Kerry. He lost, despite running far more ads during the summer than Bush. Take a look at this graphic from the New York Times:
As you can see, Kerry obliterated Bush in advertising frequency in June and July, yet he lost.
The reality is that he fell short in September in October -- when it really counts.
Not all Americans follow politics as closely as we do. Many won't pay attention to the race until September -- including, I bet, most people who are on the fence. If they don't have strong feelings, why should we expect them to make up their minds in June, anyway?
As I think we are seeing by this current campaign, it's the endgame that counts. In my personal view, Edwards has a realistic shot to win the nomination. Sure, there are many objective measures which make such an assertion sound crazy -- national polling, and national fundraising. But all I need to do is sit back and remind you that John Kerry wasn't on the map at this point in 2004.
John Kerry won the endgame in the primaries in 2004.
He lost the endgame in the general.
Finally, my conclusion!
My conclusion is simple: the Edwards public financing meme is wrong. It's not a good reason to vote against Edwards. If you like another candidate more, or you just don't like Edwards, that's cool. But don't make your decision based on an inaccurate meme.
The last thing that I'd like to leave you with is that we as a party must nominate the candidate who best represents what we stand for, and who can best lead us to victory in 2008.
My own personal odyssey, I am sure, has been similar to that of many others. I started out leaning towards Edwards, but hoping Gore would run. Now that it appears Gore will not run, I decided to look more closely at the race, narrowing my decision down to Edwards, Obama, and Hillary. All are impressive in different ways.
In the past week, however, Obama's fumbling of the McClurkin matter disqualified him from consideration, at least for me. During the debate on Tuesday, Hillary's dreadful performance -- contrasted with Edwards outstanding performance -- made the decision easy for me.
The electability argument comes down to this: which candidate can best deliver our party's message.
For me, the answer is John Edwards, hands-down. If you don't believe me, watch this video:
If you managed to read all the way through this diary, thank you. I look forward to reading your comments!
Peace,
Patel1946
George Orwell wrote Politics and the English Language in 1946.