Hillary Announces NO Public Financing for Her Campaign. Cafferty says Big IOU Coming

[KoKo]

on Inauguration if other Candidates follow her lead and he's hearing that they will. Even John McCain is saying his "campaign finance reform hasn't worked," according to Cafferty.

So, our Candidates don't even need the $1.00 we check off on our tax returns. All the financing they need is from the Corporations and Special Interest Groups.

Amazing they are admitting it upfront. Guess they don't even care about all those IOU's that will be coming due. And another Imperial President can have "secret meetings" with Big Interests and never reveal it...since Cheney set the precedent with Enron and Big Oil setting our Energy and probably "War Policy." :-(

[Richard Steele]

1. Cheney didn't set that precedent. nm

[galadrium]

2. I think it has more to do with being competative in the general election

In politics money talks. If she wants to win she needs the flexibility to be able to raise as much as possible and not be capped by accepting public funds.

[KoKo]

3. So you think Corporations and Special Interest are the ONLY ONES

who should finance our Elections? Wow....where's the accountability, there?

[galadrium]

6. I don't think that at all

But the reality is, If Hillary accepts public funding for her campaign and her GOP opponent doesn't her hands will be tied and she could be horribly outspent.

[rinsd]

4. Smart. Kerry got killed for being "honorable" in 2004

If he had forgone public financing after the convention he would have had the dough to fight the Swifties.

[Mojambo]

5. Seems to me he had (and still has) plenty of money left over from that election

At least that's what I had heard.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. $12 million left over

http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/pml1_sql_efview.exe?DoFn=C003836532004&server=PML2

[Mojambo]

10. So it would seem lack of money wasn't the reason he didn't beat back the swiftboating. n/t

[rockymountaindem]

11. He was prevented from spending that money after the convention

because he had raised it before the convention, as a result of accepting public funds (as I understand). I guess he could use it this time because it is a new election cycle.

[sandnsea]

20. Answer a math question

If money came in the day before he accepted the nomination, how was he supposed to spend it? It would have been illegal.

[rinsd]

14. He did. But that wasn't the problem

Accepting public finance means you have to wait to spend general election funds until after both conventions.

So with the late (very planned) date of the GOP convention Kerry was left with nothing in August and had to rely on outside groups to defend him.

[Mojambo]

16. Thanks for the clarification. n/t

[rinsd]

18. No sweat. It was a tough decision for Kerry that ultimately was a strategic mistake

He wanted to keep the idea of the public financing alive.

He had hoped to beat Bush over the head with his opting out.

And post-convention he had such momentum I think concerns about getting caught flat footed were pushed aside. Then the Swifties came.

[sendero]

39. Please..

... Kerry had plenty of dough. What he lacked was the mojo.

[More Than A Feeling]

7. If Hillary doing this leads to a real conversation about public financing

and a new system enacted, not just for the president, but also for congress, well, then I will be glad that she did it.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. My friend's mom used to say, "If wishes were fishes, we'd have a fish fry."

Since over 90% of congressional races are won by the candidate who spends the most money, and the incumbant has a clear fund raising advantage over a challenger, why would an incumbant want to damage their own advantage to be re-elected by leveling the playing field?

[More Than A Feeling]

17. Because they hate raising money?

It isn't as hard to get incumbents to act in the party's interest when it goes against their own as you might think. When Republicans redistrict, for example, they generally make their incumbents less safe in order to gain more seats on the whole.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. Well, under your theory the problem should have been solved. The job

decription is raising money.

And gerrymandering can hardly be construed as contrary to the parties interest, and both parties do it when given the chance.

Hillary outspent every other race by leaps and bounds in 06, even though her seat was a shoe in. So I don't see her as an allie in public financing of elections.

[More Than A Feeling]

25. Didn't say she was.

In fact, her reliance on the professional donor class at the expense of the grassroots is one of my beefs with her.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Me too. n/t

[hedda_foil]

9. Clean elections.

The next big battle has got to be mandatory public financing of elections.

[KoKo]

12. Agree...if the Bush years haven't shown how out of control it is ...

what will? When the Corporations can put in the President and force us to vote on voting machines that are capable of being manipulated and our jobs are leaving America..one wonders what's left.

[OKNancy]

13. She will get tons of small donations

just like Dean and Clark did. Sure, she will get the big donors, but don't count out her grassroots support. There are millions of Democrats who don't hate her like DUers do.

LOL - interesting side note: I got an invitation to meet John Edwards on Feb. 14th IF I have at least $1000.00 to attend the luncheon.

[KoKo]

21. Grassroots dollars just help pay "postage" when the Corporations

and Special interests are funding it all. The wealthy money get's the return phone calls. My $100.00 gets a form letter.

So...why even give as a little donor...when it's "postage stamps" or some phone bills that are paid and we no longer have "ACCESS?" :shrug:

[OKNancy]

23. don't then

donate to whomever you please.

[KoKo]

29. But the person I might choose to donate to ...can't compete!

Given the Corporate/Special Interests...what does it matter if I give to what the MSM calls the "Quixotic P-Candidate Kucinich, or the unknown Vilsak?"

If only the MEDIA FRONTRUNNERS like Hillary and Biden and Dodd on the Dem side can get funding from the Corporate/Special Interests what does that mean to the Grassroots who can only donate a Dollar or Two or a Hundred or maybe 200.00?

When they only have to go out and appear to their BIG DONORS (flying in on Campaign Donated Special Planes by the Corporatists) and being escorted to the BIG HOUSE where the SPECIAL DONORS have Catered Appetizers and folks have written "under the law" donations...how do "WE, THE PEOPLE" ever HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE? :shrug: HOW?

[SaveElmer]

19. Sorry...I support reform including total public financing...but

I see no reason for Democrats to unilaterally disarm themselves...

[zbdent]

22. Don't know why Repukes would bitch about this

since their posterboy "Messiah" Bush did it ...

[John Q. Citizen]

27. But I see why the public might. n/t

[LSK]

28. one month in Iraq could pay for the whole election

$8 billion.

[KoKo]

30. I know...disgusting isn't it...Elections and ALL ELSE held Captive to Iraq!

I never thought I'd live in an American Expriment so ALTRUISTIC LIKE THIS..that CRASHES ON IT's BUTT!

[StrictlyRockers]

31. I like this, a lot. This is a good sign.

Hillary would make a great prez, imho.

SR

[KoKo]

33. Hillary says: I have enough "Corporate Donors" & I don't need Postage Mail from Individuals

and YOU THINk...this is GOOD? WHY?

[KoKo]

32. Howard Dean on Tweety just did an announcement that he took Corporate Funds!

Dean Admitted that he took Corporate Funds and was the FIRST TO DO SO...according to the "Campaign Finace Laws." He said "Until Publick Financing of Elections" can be put in place ..."We Dems have to take what's available to compete."

DEAN said: "I'm totally in favor or Public Financing of our Elections...but until we get that...we need to compete."

He makes an interesting point.

[AtomicKitten]

34. Dean has it exactly right.

DEAN said: "I'm totally in favor or Public Financing of our Elections...but until we get that...we need to compete."

[k_jerome]

35. following Howard Deans lead...good move. nt.

[KoKo]

36. I understand that Hillary is "pragmatic" in her decisions..BUT

should Dems Vote for Bill/Hillary Once Again? I've not been convinced of that ...so far. :shrug:

[k_jerome]

37. i vote for the person..not the family...

it is early yet. lets see how things evolve.

[KoKo]

41. How can one vote for Hillary and leave out her Awesome Partner?

:shrug:

[Ignacio Upton]

38. That's because the current process is VOLUNTARY

By accepting those funds for the primary and/or general election, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. One of the reasons why Kerry was able to stay competitive with Bush in 2004, despite Bush's colossal warchest, was because he opted out of federal matching funds (he did this right after Dean announced he would do it during the primaries, as a way to stay competitive with Dean.) Unless you make federal matching funds mandatory, then they are useless.

[KoKo]

40. But! does making "process voluntary" mean it's GOOD for Candidates to

acceot ONLY CORPORATE or Special Interet FUNDS? That's the question...

I don't think it's a GOOD THING. :shrug:

[KoKo]

42. Molly Ivans apparently thinks Hillary's Wrong on not taking Public Funds...here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=18438&mesg_id=18438

[fuzzyball]

43. There are some limitations imposed when they accept public money

which is why some prefer all private money, if they
can get it with connections to the corporate world.