Why Did Edwards Do This? Pros and Cons: Trippi speaks about public financing

[DeepModem Mom]

The Nation: Why Did Edwards Do This? Pros and Cons
Marc Ambinder
27 Sep 2007

Advisers to Sen. John Edwards argued that the decision to opt in to the public finance system will boost the campaign's coffers before the primaries, but conceded that the campaign's fundraising to date had not met their expectations.

"Before we did this," one adviser said, "there were only two campaigns (Obama's and Clinton's) who thought they'd be around before the primaries with about $20M or $30M on hand. Now, we're going to be right there with them. We're going to have between $18M and $21M on hand now. That'll give us a huge boost."...But entering federal financing system has two major drawbacks. There's an overall spending limit for the primaries, so a campaign that blows through its money would be bankrupt until after its convention, allowing the opposing party's candidate to air television ads without rebuttal. (As Edwards adviser-then-Dean-manager Joe Trippi said in 2003: "This campaign believes that any Democratic campaign that opted into the matching-funds system has given up on the general election.”).

And the candidates are severely constrained in what they can spend in the states. There are fairly strict caps in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. An Edwards aide said that the campaign had run the numbers and concluded that they have yet to exceed spending limits. The arcane and fairly complicated allocation laws will help: if Edwards's campaign runs a television ad in Davenport, since 70% of the audience for that ad is in next-door Illinois, 70% of the cost of the ad will count towards Illinois's limit, and not Iowa's. And even for the Iowa portion, the campaign is required to allocate 50% to the limit.

Another loophole: some organizing expenses do not count towards the cap, and the Edwards campaign will claim that most of their Iowa staff expenses to date have been related to field organizing and fundraising....

Trippi offered a preview of how Edwards will sell the decision in Iowa and other states. "Iowa gets to choose between a Democrat who is taking the money of health care lobbyists and insurance lobbyists and corporate lobbyists and PACs who will almost certainly blow through the spending limits that they would have to abide by under public financing against a Democrat who has never taken a dime of PAC money and has never taken a dime of lobbyists money, and now, will stay within the public financing system in Iowa, which will give the people of Iowa the change to decide who will go to Washington and represent them on all these issues?"

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/why_did_edwards_do_this_pros_a.php

[FrenchieCat]

1. but, but, but....Edwards said himself, "This is not about a money calculation"

But it sounds very much like it was.

Edwards said it was the "principled stand" that he was taking on the issue.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/edwards.public.financing/index.html

[1932]

2. It's a money calculation. Who do you want representing you in washington? People who would blow

through the spending limits they would otherwise have because they got so much money from lobbyists, or someone who has never taken money from a lobbyist? -- as the last paragraph in the story says. There is definitely 'money' in that calculation.

[Cameron27]

3. Joe Trippi is full of it,

and I wouldn't care except for this:

"But entering federal financing system has two major drawbacks. There's an overall spending limit for the primaries, so a campaign that blows through its money would be bankrupt until after its convention, allowing the opposing party's candidate to air television ads without rebuttal. (As Edwards adviser-then-Dean-manager Joe Trippi said in 2003: "This campaign believes that any Democratic campaign that opted into the matching-funds system has given up on the general election.”)"

He can tie a ribbon on it and call it a Christmas Present for all I care, but where does that put the rest of us if Edwards is the nominee.

[1932]

4. I guess people don't really want change. I guess that's just a meaningless slogan.

[Cameron27]

5. Edwards himself said he didn't want to take

public financing because he couldn't be competitive. Everyone wants campaign finance law enacted, not some meaningless prattle used to make a lack of donations look heroic.

[1932]

6. I think he'd drop out if he really thought he wasn't going to win.

[Cameron27]

9. The problem is that every single one of the top three

thinks they're going to win, and having a candidate hamstring himself before the convention will leave us more vulnerable than we can afford.

[1932]

11. Are you spinning this, or can you see the future?

I would think that DEMOCRATS would be more enthusiastic about a statement that explicitly criticizes the power of lobbyists.

If you think that democratic primary voters are so much on the side of corporate America that they won't care or understand the significance of this statement, that's one thing. But, jeez, why write if off now (unless you have three people floating in a baby pool who can see the future)?

I thought Lieberman was a crappy VP choice and I had no confidence that Al Gore wasn't going to continue being a Lawrence Summers/Robert Rubin Democrat, but I certainly didn't say that in public before the 2000 election. And now that I have a Democrat to support who is the opposite of that, I feel compelled as a democrat who supports the interests of human beings to be enthusiastic about this decision by the Edwards campaign. I guess I'm alone.

[FrenchieCat]

John Edwards is the one doing the spinning, and if you were

intellectually honest, you would acknowledge that Edwards' change of heart had nothing to do with principle and everything to do with money!

I acknowledge that money is a problem in all of our campaigns....but that's not why Edwards has decided to accept public funds.

[1932]

19. you're not going to address the point in the last paragraph in the OP and my posts below, are you?

[FrenchieCat]

21. no...cause I already know why John Edwards is taking public funds now,

and it has little to do with what you are talking about.

Money is certainly a problem in elections (and has been for quite some time).......and so Good diversion on your part......but since you won't acknowledge the fact that Edwards blatenly lied through his teeth on this one, we have little to discuss.

Plus, he has the nerves to attack the other candidates and calls on them to do as he is doing.

What a mensch! :sarcasm:

[1932]

24. Let's back up. What's your argument? What do you "know" about Edwards?

What you call my 'Good diversion' couldn't be simpler and is so obviously what's going on here.

I have no idea how you're building this argument into something else -- I am having a very hard following your logic.

And, as I said in another post, I'm really stunned that Democrats would knee-jerk criticize this or believe that they can get away with spinning this the way you have in front of what should be a Democratic audience.

[Cameron27]

18. Talk about spinning,

I'm quoting from the nation and Trippi himself. This is a typical Trippi/Edwards bullshit attempt to turn a deficit into a plus. It has less to do with corporate America and more to do with the fact that Edwards has run a lackluster campaign, despite all his negative campaigning, and all of Elizabeth's nasty swipes at Clinton and Obama, and all his spinning about his sudden transformation.

He's not getting enough interest to sustain his candidacy without taking public funds, which he was against in Feb. and apparently was still against when he asked for another million dollars a few days ago.

[1932]

20. That post is absurd. Let's just bookmark this and see who gets sworn in as president.

And what do you mean with that last sentence? You're supposed to stop fundraising completely if you accept public MATCHING funds?

[Cameron27]

23. Absurd?

Why can't Mr. Populist get enough small donations to make it without taking public funds. Howard Dean was able to go further than Edwards has on that. Where are all the big netroots dollars? If people were "inspired," they'd donate.

[1932]

25. There's a certain Jackson Pollock quality to these posts. What exactly is your argument?

[Cameron27]

30. My argument is that Edwards needs money,

he hasn't been able to raise enough and now has to resort to public funding. There's nothing noble or self-sacrificing about it, and he and Trippi are hypocrites for trying to frame it that way, and hypocrites for challenging Obama & Clinton to do the same thing. If he was able to garner enough enthusiasm for his campaign, he'd be able to survive on small donations in the same way that Howard Dean did. The lack of lobbyist money & PAC's wouldn't be a enough of a factor to shut him down.

If this is such an important issue for him, then he would never have said that he wouldn't take public money in February, and when he asked for another $1,000,000 in the last 10 days of the quarter, he would have included the pitch about matching funds. The rest of my argument came from Trippi's own lips in 2003 that's quoted in the Nation article. If you have a problem with it, email him.

[JDPriestly]

31. What is noble is not taking big corporate money.

I am out tabling and campaigning for Edwards. People like him, and many are planning to vote for him. These are, however, not necessarily the kinds of people who have spare change to send to candidates. I think Edwards is making a smart move.

Hillary has the financial support of the corporate moguls including Rupert Murdoch.

Obama has the support of Hollywood stars like Oprah.

Edwards has my support and the support of little people like me who don't have a lot of money.

Edwards talks from his heart. We are used to candidates who say what it takes to win. Edwards does that to a lesser extent than say Hillary.

Edwards is a trial lawyer. I know that what I am going to say conflicts with the beliefs that most people have about trial lawyers, but what I am about to say is true. The highest ethical duty of a trial lawyer is to tell the truth to the court. A lawyer has the choice of remaining silent or of trying to keep an issue or evidence away from the court, but cannot out and out lie to the court.

Edwards is used to being held to that standard. None of the other candidates are. Giuliani was a prosecutor and was held to that standard, but I don't think he has tried a case in many years. The same goes for the other candidates that are lawyers. Edwards' career has mostly been in law and a lot of it in the courtroom. He is used to having to prove that what he says is true. He may make mistakes, but he is not in the habit of BSing. You can count on that. That is why he is not taking corporate money. He knows what the price is for taking it. He has seen opposing counsel pay that price in the courtroom. So, money probably played a part in his decision, but being free to speak his mind without answering to corporate sponsors is probably his most important motivation.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Change? Why didn't Edwards believe in "Change" of this nature

in February of this year? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-05-edwards-money_x.htm

[1932]

8. Because he didn't know how much lobbyist support his challengers would get?

Because he thought his fellow Democratic candidates would get financial support more reflective of the kind politicians who represent the interests of human beings would get?

Isn't this all pretty clear in the OP?

[FrenchieCat]

10. Bullshit......Edwards' been around the block. This ain't his first national campaign......

He made a decision in February, and changed it in September and the reason was money, or lack thereof. Principle had nothing to do with it. Wake up!

[1932]

12. I'm not sure that responds to my post. I know you're serious when I see the apostrophes and dropped

letters. But I don't see a response to the point I made.

Who knew in February that lobbyists would so enthusiastically support the other Democrats? This is a core issue to the Edwards campaign. It's not like Biden, Senator from {a} Delaware {corporation} is making this decision. I have to wonder who is naive about politics if you don't understand the difference. But I think you really do, which is why it's important for you to spin this.

[FrenchieCat]

16. So it is about money....and Edwards saying that it wasn't was just a lie? n/t

[1932]

17. It IS about money. It's about money in politics. Can you just address my point for a moment.

This decision clearly has to do with the fact that the other candidates are outraising him with HUGE DONATIONS FROM LOBBYISTS.

[provis99]

13. so If Edwards has no principles,

who do you think running in the Democratic primaries does? I'd throw up if you said Clinton.

[1932]

14. I replied to the wrong post...

[FrenchieCat]

15. Where were his "principles" in February of 2007 on this?

When, at the time, he was declining Federal Funds. Why the big Principle Stand now?

and why would he begrudge and challenge the other Dem candidates now? What changed? Couldn't be money, cause he said it wasn't a money calculation. :shrug:

[1932]

22. Once again. What do we know now that we didn't know then? That lobbyists and PACS would really get

behind a couple Democrats.

If you believe that's bad, you can't make a statement about it and accept public funds?

Especially if your political career and two political campaigns is built on making this argument?

[FrenchieCat]

26. So Edwards lied about his accepting matching funds as having

no money calculation basis, right?

and him egging the other candidates to follow suit is just political theater for those who care about the issue of money reform in our politics.

It's all just one big shtick, hey?

[1932]

27. It is obviously making a statement about money in politics that resonates with his campaign themes.

It is based on the fact that lobbyists and PACs are giving so much money to his competitors, which wasn't clear back in February.

It's an important issue.

What am I missing here?

Why do I find your argument so uncompelling?

[Turner Ashby]

28. Let's get real

He's worth at least 60 million. He could borrow 20 million from himself, and keep raising funds, if he wanted to. He is only 57, which is young for a lawyer. He was a highly successful lawyer, who could step back into the field "of counsel" and make it all back within about 5 years and he knows it, without working too terribly hard. Could he live on the remaining 40 million for 6 years. Probably.

[1932]

29. I'm not sure how that is relevant.

[Adelante]

32. Self-financing for Edwards

could do some damage on his populist imagery, too. But he had to do something to get through Iowa and he had two choices. Lend himself the money (as Kerry did) and try to claim it was for idealistic reasons, not sucking on the public teat. Take public money and claim it was for idealistic reasons, not sucking on the private teat. It's not an easy choice, but I think self-financing might have at least saved him from being the multimillionaire taking money out of taxpayers' pockets (which I anticipate will be the spin), since his money and professed ideology have fairly successfully been used to weaken his imagery all through the primary season. If he'd come out for public financing from the beginning, he might have a leg to stand on, but wanting to make a moral issue out of it now that he needs it, as opposed to February when he didn't, adds to his reputation as an opportunist.

I am 100% in favor of public campaign financing, but we can't be waiting until the middle of a campaign to make it an issue, the very time only the lowest raisers can afford to actually do it. Congress needs to take care of this one and in between elections.