just got a prerecorded call from Joe Trippi

[ulysses]

wanting my net vote on whether the Dean campaign should accept matching funds. I know I saw a post recently saying that the way of the angels is for them to decline the funds, but I'm not sure that's the case, especially since I'm all for public campaign financing.

Anyone care to sway me either way?

[AP]

1. Does phone message spin you towards rejecting public funds the way

the email spins it? Or was the call neutural, in your opinion?

[ulysses]

6. haven't read the email yet

The call seemed pretty neutral, though.

[LuminousX]

2. Check out this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=79476

I think it does a great job in showing both sides of the issues. I think it is foolish to attempt to persuade you one way or another. You can read through the arguments, good arguments on both sides of the issue, and make up your mind from there.

[ulysses]

7. thanks. n/t

[MissB]

3. Flame me if you want, but I put my principles away for this vote

Bush isn't opting out, and Dean at this point looks like the likely Democratic nominee.

So why on earth would I want Dean to be limited to 45 million when Bush is expected to raise 200 million?

[LuminousX]

4. I would hate to lose for the inability to spend $1

That is what it comes down to for me. If Dean can raise $55 million that is just that much more he can use against Bush.

Secondly, I don't like the idea that a candidate is unable to accept my donation because of an arbitrary limit. Until we have true public financed campaigns, I don't want my rights to support a candidate infringed upon.

[leyton]

5. Agree.

Ditto.

And, just for general info, I just got the call too. It didn't really spin the issue either way, just said it was crucial.

[MrChupon]

25. Our entire Colorado State University Dean Meetup

had a vote of hands, and nearly the whole room voted to reject the matching funds.

[realFedUp]

8. I voted no for matching funds.

In this case, Dean is collecting mainly donations
in small amounts (under $100) from people like you
and me, not corporations. I think McCain and Feingold
would actually praise this kind of grassroots support
of a candidate.

Putting the responsibility for his financial support
on the people who want to see him elected is smart
and those of us who do support him, will.

Also, those who don't support him, aren't having
their $1 going to him...:-)

[ulysses]

9. grassroots support doesn't preclude federal matching funds

at least to my mind. Out of the "people/federal government/corporations" triad, the corps are the ones whose money I want out of elections.

[realFedUp]

15. The great Democratic experiment

but wouldn't it be great if just regular folks
sent this guy to the White House...without
taxpayer dollars.

[ulysses]

16. well yeah

I'd forgotten that acceptance of matching funds limits the candidate's spending, so it'll have to be without tax money if it happens at all.

Off to find that email. Thanks, y'all.

[redqueen]

10. I got the same call.

No spin as far as I could tell... but I was only halfway listening.

[Eloriel]

11. I'll try

Actually, you ought to read the material you can get to on the blog. I didn't check out that thread, but the blog has some good info. Scroll down to where there's an entry about the vote.

In a nutshell: If he accepts matching funds he'll be limited for the ENTIRE primary race (that is, til the convention in late July) to a maximum of $45 million in expenditures. (Even Fred Wertheimer on MSNBC the other day said that figure is grossly out of synch with the times.) Bear in mind Bush will have $200 million and no primary opponent. Imagine reaching the end of March and being unable to spend another cent.

Not only that, at some point in the very near future, he'll have to bring ALL fundraising to a screeching halt.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Eloriel

[ulysses]

13. that's what I was looking for.

Thought I might be missing something. Thanks, Eloriel. :) :thumbsup:

[killbotfactory]

12. If he accepts public financing, he's limited on what he can receive

And the way it's going now, he's getting tons and tons of small donations. It seems to me like stopping this effort to accept 19 mil of public funds and be limited to that until august or whenever seems silly. He can raise a lot of money through regular small donations, and that seems to be more in the spirit of campaign finance reform than abiding by the limits.

Bush is going to raise 200 million until the republican convention, which they deliberately set at a late date to allow more spending, and then accept public funds for the general election. It's not much of a great rule to abide by if it allows that kind of abuse, IMO.

[proud patriot]

14. IMHO

I voted to opt out of matching funds .

I thought to myself why the heck not , we need
all the funds we can get to beat the 200 million
dollar bush war chest .

:shrug:

That and Dean promised to address campaign finance

:eyes:

politics a soul sucking siege at times

:think:

we just got to beat bush

[ulysses]

17. heh

I'm number 666 in the "Win Georgia for Dean" list. "SATAN???" :D

Voted against matching funds, and working on the donation.

[proud patriot]

19. LOL

I'm channeling church lady :-)

[ulysses]

20. glad someone got the reference

:D

[HootieMcBoob]

18. he called me too

I'm supporting Clark in the primary at this point but if Dean wins the nomination he'll need every dollar he can get to fight Bush, so I would vote to opt out.

[Ramsey]

21. My take: Decline

There are really two issues here: how much money you spend and where that money comes from. In the first category, I would personally like to see less total spending on political campaigns. I think all those billions per election cycle could certainly be put to better use. However, I don't want Bush spending $200 million, and our candidate limited to $45 million, because that clearly isn't fair or equitable. Not in an era when 99% of the time, the candidate with the most money wins. So, until we have limits across the board on campaign spending, I'd like to see our guy have as many resources as Bush does. Besides, you cannot reform the system from the outside. Dean has to get into power to have any influence over the current campaign finance system.

As for the second category, Dean really has become the ultimate egalitarian candidate. In this area, limits on total dollars raised doesn't really make sense. While Bush gets average contributions near the $2000 maximum from the wealthy and connected, Dean has a broad-based popular support at an average donation size of about $80. Bush will have 100,000 people give $2000; Dean will have 2 million people give $100. That is really the ultimate in public financing.

On a practical note, Dean will be hogtied if he accepts the federal limits. He has already nearly raised the maximum amount allowed under that system, and thus will have to stop fundraising soon. Then he'll have to spend most of his money fighting this very contentious primary. While the candidate presumptive will be known in the spring, the candidate official is not selected until the convention. Dean will not be able to raise a dime until after that, and all the while, Bush will be able to get his smear machine into high gear. Then Dean will only have a few weeks after the primary to raise funds to oppose Bush in the general election. He'll be way behind and possibly unable to catch up either with fundraising or advertising at that point.

He really needs to decline the funds, and keep his fundraising and campaigning operations in full operational mode from now until the general (assuming he is the nominee). And the fact is, he may be able to rival Bush's war chest, at the rate he's been going.

edit: typos

[Classical_Liberal]

22. I'm for public financing too.

However I believe Dean will raise more money by himself then with matching funds, and more money always helps.

[janx]

23. I got one of those calls too! It was great because on the

recording, Trippi kept saying "Check your email! Check your email!"

Very funny--and effective.

Bush is counting on the fact that we'll stay with public funds. He has another thing coming though...

Staying with public funding will keep us down. We can't afford to do that, no matter how much of a political martyr our campaign may seem to be if we do.

We have to go for the whole thing and raise money like crazy. We must do this to be able to compete.

We've already set all kinds of records. We can set another one.


Let's do it!

[janx]

24. kick...

[janx]

26. I can't wait to find out how we all voted...I think I know how

it will turn out.

Does anyone here know when the campaign will know? Will they know tonight, or will we have to wait until tomorrow?

[Eloriel]

27. Voting ends at midnight toniht, Eastern

And they're supposed to announce the decision at Noon tomorrow (Sat.)

The blog has been overwhelmingly in favor.

As I said, when you know the facts, it's a no-brainer.

Plus, I love what one poster to the blog said: We ARE Campaign Finance Reform.

Eloriel

[SOteric]

28. I've been pulling up this little noted article every now and again

and this strikes me as yet another place to do so. I've disabled the html so that I can post this link to the article in the Seattle Times archives. (Requires no registration)

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=donate27&date=20021127&query=Republicans+Corporate+donations


By Thomas B. Edsall
The Washington Post



"WASHINGTON C Major industries such as accounting, aerospace, commercial banking, defense and healthmaintenance organizations and pharmaceutical have abandoned their tradition of bipartisan campaign contributions in favor of a commitment to the Republican Party, a trend that could deepen the problems of a Democratic Party rocked by this month's elections.

An analysis of political donations by industry groups shows that in the past 10 years, 19 major sectors have shifted from a roughly 5050 split between the two main parties C or in some cases, a slightly proDemocratic tilt C to a solid alignment with the Republican Party, which enjoys advantages exceeding 5to1 in some sectors. The shift has produced at least $78 million in additional GOP support from these groups over 10 years, while donations to Democrats have declined slightly.

The realignment is no accident. Republican leaders for years have been pressing corporate and trade groups to hire more GOP lobbyists and to support more GOP candidates. They have emphasized the GOP issues that favor the corporate world, such as regulatory relief, businesstax cuts and liability limits in civil cases (sometimes called tort reform).

Their success could have farreaching implications for U.S. politics and elections. Democrats increasingly find themselves frozen out by deeppocket industries and politicalaction committees, making them more dependent than ever on a relatively small number of sources: organized labor, trial lawyers, the entertainment industry, environmentalists, educators and the hightech industry. A recent change in campaignfinance laws will exacerbate the Democrats' problems, denying them the big checks they once received from loyalists in Hollywood and elsewhere, while Republicans use their corporate ties to collect hundreds of thousands of smaller checks from management employees and association members who now play a huge role in federal elections. "


more...

[alphafemale]

29. We got the call too!

Did anyone on Dean's list NOT get called?

We also voted to not take the matching funds.

[4dog]

30. Got the call but not the e-mail - anybody else? (n/t)

[Renew Deal]

31. Dean is letting his supporters vote so...

he can say he didn't flip flop. I understand both sides of this. If Dean was running alone I would vote no. In this case, it's debatable. Obviously the campaign wants you to vote no or they wouldn't ask.