PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY MATCHING FUNDS information for DUMMIES

[FrenchieCat]

MATCHING FUNDS AND THEIR LIMITS:
Partial public funding is available to Presidential primary candidates in the form of federal matching payments. Candidates seeking their party’s nomination to the Presidency can qualify to receive matching funds by raising at least $5,000 in each of 20 states. Only contributions from individuals are matchable, and while an individual may contribute up to $2,000 to a candidate (a change included in the BCRA of 2002 increasing the limit from $1,000), only $250 of an individual’s contribution can be applied toward the $5,000 threshold in each state, and only $250 of an individual’s contribution is ever matchable.

......the candidate may submit evidence of contributions from individuals for matching. The Commission’s audit staff reviews these submissions to determine if the requests meet the standards for matchability. The maximum amount of matching funds a candidate may receive is limited to 50 percent of the base spending limit. In 2004, presidential primary candidates who accepted public funding had a maximum entitlement of $18,655,000.

The effective primary expenditure limit in 2004 was $44,772,000.(that included money raised and matching funds appropriated).

Primary election candidates must also agree to an overall spending limit and spending limits in each state.
http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml

The presidential public funding system further constrains participating candidates by imposing limits on how much they can spend in individual states. These limits are calculated using the voting age population of the state, after a base level allotment. This means that the spending limits in a small state like New Hampshire, which has a key primary, remain unreasonably low. In 2004, for example, participating candidates could spend only $746,200 in New Hampshire, while the spending limit in Texas, not generally considered a key primary state, was $9,478,531
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/problem.cfm

ELECTION SPENDING DURING THE 2004 PRIMARIES (Note, Matching funds were not accepted by either nominee)
President Bush and Sen. John Kerry raised $259 million and $241 million, respectively, during the primary season.<2> Had they remained in the public financing system, they would have been restricted to spending $45 million.
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/problem.cfm


ELECTION 2008:
Most experts expect the major parties' nominees to be selected by the end of voting on Feb. 5, 2008, when upwards of 20 states will hold their primaries.
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/problem.cfm


572 GROUPS AND THEIR LIMITS: 527 Groups include all Unions as well as Independent advocacy organizations such as Emily's list, Move-On.org, Sierra Club, America Coming Together, etc....
----------
Under federal election law, coordination between an election campaign and a 527 group is not allowed. The heavy spending of key 527 groups to attack presidential candidates brought complaints to the Federal Elections Commission of illegal coordination between the groups and rival political campaigns.

In 2006 and 2007 the FEC fined a number of organizations, including MoveOn and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, for violations arising from the 2004 campaign. The FEC's rationale was that these groups had specifically advocated the election or defeat of candidates, thus making them subject to federal regulation and its limits on contributions to the organizations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_group

there is no sign that the major 527 groups that tried to make up the fiscal difference between the parties in 2004 -- America Coming Together, the Media Fund, and so on -- are going to be around in 2008, meaning that there will be fewer, not more, outside groups able to defend the new Democratic contender from GOP attack during the months before the convention.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2007&base_name=trippi_20_mn_he_made

ACT BLUE CONTRIBUTIONS CONTROVERSY:
In a draft opinion (.pdf) that the Federal Election Commission is set to consider Friday, the FEC staff says that contributions to..... ActBlue aren't matchable under campaign finance law.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/10/145619/71

What you can do prior to Friday to add your voice in reference to the Act Blue Controversy (I suggest that all Edwards supporters in particular get to it, if they haven't yet.)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/13/94112/598/496/421553

CONCLUSION:
In taking public funds, the real downside is the spending caps. Spending in various states is severely restricted, which means that a state by state strategy would be greatly hampered. If there is a need for additional spending to be focused in a "purple swing" state, the caps imposed could severally limit that strategy.

In addition, the problem with public funding isn't during the primaries themselves, but immediately afterwards once the nominee is known and the primaries are completed. It is a fact that there is a lot of money spent in January and February while trying to win the nomination by each candidate. If a Candidate accepting matching funds has spent most of his primary money by the time a nominee is known, then he/she will not receive any infusion of cash beyond the capped amount until AFTER the Democratic convention which starts August 25.

This means no infusion of cash (donations beyond the caps are set aside for the General Election period starting in September of 2008) for a large part of February, and all of March, April, May, June, July, and August (the convention is from the 25-28 http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ )

That's nearly 7 months.

If a nominee has not accepted matching funds, then that nominee is not subject to spending caps nationally or state by state and is free to raise as much money without restrictions.

Unfortunately, although Democrats are outraising Republicans this year, this phenomenon will not provide any funding advantages for a Democratic candidate who has accepted matching Public funds.

Also read.... http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=09&year=2007&base_name=edwards_and_public_funds_1

[gateley]

1. Thanks. I needed that. nt

[FrenchieCat]

2. You are welcome.......

as it is important information to know.

During the primaries, it may not seem to be something that matters as much, but once the primaries are over it may feel like a terribly bad hangover from hell after a great party....especially if you didn't know beforehand that the hang-over could not be aleviated by taking a simple aspirin or two.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I will post an Act-Blue addendum, once the specifics on this Friday's ruling

is known.

[Stop Cornyn]

4. PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY MATCHING FUNDS information for SMART PEOPLE

State Democratic Parties would not be subject to the limits any matching-fund accepting campaign would be subject to, and the state parties could bring the candidate into as many state campaign events as the candidate wishes to participate in. Which means that anyone who says "Spending in various states is severely restricted, which means that a state by state strategy would be greatly hampered" is either selling you something or misinformed.

[FrenchieCat]

5. A smart link would be nice.

Thanks.

Here's what I found thus far:

[Stop Cornyn]

7. Here:

Contributions which are not subject to FEC limits.

While the amount you can give directly to a candidate is tightly restricted, the amount you can give to the candidate's party is not. You may give as much as you want for such "party-building" activities as get-out-the-vote drives, bumper stickers, and voter registration efforts as long as that money is not spent on behalf of a specific candidate for federal office. This loophole in federal election law has made it possible for the parties to raise huge amounts through contributions to state party committees and the "non-federal" bank accounts of the Democratic and Republican National Committees. In the first half of 1995, the two national party committees raised a total of $30.6 million, according to a Common Cause analysis of federal record. The amount was a record for a six-month period.
While "soft money" may theoretically not be spent on Presidential campaigns, it is impossible as a practical matter to tell the difference between a dollar spent on, say, President Clinton's campaign ads, and a dollar spent on a generic "Vote Democratic" commercial.
"Soft money" was created when Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1979 with an eye to encouraging giving to state and local party committees. While the FEC can do nothing to limit soft money, since 1991 it has required the parties to disclose the names of soft money givers.

I know this doesn't specifically reference state parties, but the rule applies to state parties which can host as many party building events as they want, and the state party an cover the cost of the events, and the cost of the events typically includes bringing in the headliner, who -- during a presidential election cycle -- can be the party candidate. This can happen 7 days a week in 7 different states, and none of it is the campaign's expense because it is all state party building.

Also, the period where a public-finance accepting candidate would be theoretically without funds would be more like 2 and a half or 3 months, rather than 7 as you suggest. Plus, if a nominee sews up the votes necessary to win the nomination, the party could move up the formal nomination to follow shortly on the heels of the last primary so the 2 and a half month period could be cut back even further.

[FrenchieCat]

8. This is in reference to "soft" money.......

in where the same rules apply as with 527s.....

You may give as much as you want for such "party-building" activities as get-out-the-vote drives, bumper stickers, and voter registration efforts as long as that money is not spent on behalf of a specific candidate for federal office.

This is a given that both the GOP and the Dem will do this, as they always have.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Please provide background information on your sentence here....

Also, the period where a public-finance accepting candidate would be theoretically without funds would be more like 2 and a half or 3 months, rather than 7 as you suggest.

I don't see that info quoted at the link you gave me.

Thanks.

[FrenchieCat]

6. and

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml

****The national committee of a political party may make special, limited expenditures, called coordinated party expenditures or 441a(d) expenditures, on behalf of its Presidential nominee, even if the nominee does not accept public funds. Coordinated party expenditures are not considered contributions and do not count against a publicly funded campaign's candidate expenditure limit.

[FrenchieCat]

10. According to this NYT article.....

In 2002, Congress changed the campaign finance laws to ban soft money contributions to party committees, and donors turned instead to so-called 527 groups, which could still spend unlimited contributions.
---------

The 2008 race will be the longest and most expensive presidential election in American history,” said Michael E. Toner, a commissioner of the Federal Election Commission. “Top-tier candidates are going to have to raise $100 million by the end of 2007 to be a serious candidate.” He added: “We are looking at a $100 million entry fee."

the fund has faced chronic shortfalls as the percentage of taxpayers contributing has declined to less than 10 percent last year from over 30 percent in the 1970s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/us/politics/23donate.html?ref=us

[FrenchieCat]

11. The Presidential election fund cannot come from any other funding source

than the one designated.


“About 10 percent of Americans choose to participate; 90 percent choose not to.”

Charles E. M. Kolb, president of the Committee for Economic Development, a business group that advocates for election laws, said, “It may take a collapse of the system in order to build it back up.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/us/politics/23donate.html?pagewanted=2&ref=us

[FrenchieCat]

12. Kick for the night crowd!