Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Correct me if I'm wrong, did Kerry take public financing? What money did he spend "over the summer"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
merbex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 08:38 AM
Original message
Correct me if I'm wrong, did Kerry take public financing? What money did he spend "over the summer"?
That seems to be the argument against Edwards that he'll go silent during the summer leading to the Convention?!?

Anyone remember just how "vocal' the Kerry campaign was over the summer leading to the Convention?

.....anyone?

......anyone?

......Bueller?

......Bueller?

I didn't think so.

What campaign ever makes noise "over the summer" leading to the Convention?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. from memory, no he didn't take money
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. No. After Dean opted out of public financing for the primaries, Kerry
announced he would follow suit. Like all candidates from both parties (to date, since it's inception) he accepted public financing for the general. That funding is forthcoming immediately after the conventions.

In 2004, Kerry spent approximately $225 million during the primary months. Bush spent approximately $250 million. Edwards is now limited to spending $50 million for that period, and has already spent over half that amount.

And yes, both Kerry and Bush, or rather their campaigns, were very vocal in the spring and summer months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merbex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Kerry campaign from my recollection was silent during the summer
did they run commercials in states in June, July and August pre Convention?

Where did they spend money those months?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Of course they did
They ran massive numbers of ads pre-convention. And remember, that money was money spent ONLY during the primary months.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/politics101/politics101_adwatch.html

Scroll down on the linked piece and you'll find they started running ads in February of 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. No, not in June and July. They were in August, after the Convention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. please click the link I posted Kerry absolutely ran ads- starting shortly
after he wrapped up the nomination in Feb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupinBushcountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yes he ran ads
on primary money up until he accepted the nomination on July 29th at the convention. Once he accepted the nomination he was then under public financing. Hence....Bush had 5 weeks of non-public financing money to use as the Kerry campaign was bound to the $75 million from the end of July up until election day (thanks to McAuliffe making the convention so early). Kerry actually thought about not accepting the nomination at the convention and accepting at a later date, the Dem establishment went nutso on that idea, I thought it was a great idea and could be easily explained since the DNC (McAwful) screwed up by his early convention date. The Kerry campaign transferrred $25 million to the DNC, what did they do with that money in the month of August?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
5. Kerry did not take public financing and was not silent before the Democratic Convention.
The attacks after him started AFTER the Democratic Convention, at a time when he could not use anymore his primary money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-31-07 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
9. He didn't take punblic finacing in the primary - so he had plenty of money before
the convention. He used much of it - I thing on everything from setting up state organizations in all states and advertising. He opted out after Dean did - which allowed him to say it was necessary to compete.

In the General election neither Kerry or Bush opted out. It would have been a political problem if he, the author of the Kerry/Wellstone clean elections bill and a career long proponent of getting money out of politics would have opted out first. Here is Kerry's speech on that bill:
"
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.

Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.

Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook.
The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean elections'' funded by ``clean money,'' elections where our citizens are the ones who make the difference"




The problem was the McAuliffe chosen convention date ended up 5 weeks before the Bush one - making Kerry stretch money over 13 weeks instead of 8. Kerry thought of promising to accept the nomination at a date 5 weeks later rather than actually accepting it at the convention but this clever (and fair) solution was panned by everyone. (It really is an unintended consequence of McCain/Feingold that favors the party in power which always gets the last convention.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC