"The Edwards problem"

Markos:

Yesterday evening I had campaign law expert Adam B. give us a fact-based rundown on what taking public money in the primary really means and entails. The bottom line:

Then come the expenditure caps, and on this there's been confusion because there are two sets of caps. There is a cap on per-state spending which appears bizarrely low ($1,486,433 for Iowa?) and is not what it seems -- the caps only apply to television and radio advertising, or to direct mail that is sent within 28 days before the vote.

No, the real cap issue is the overall spending cap for the primaries, which lasts from the start of your campaign through the end of the Convention in late August (when you're no longer seeking the nomination), and it's believed to be around $43M for 2008. And that sum includes almost everything -- only "certain fundraising expenses (up to 20 percent of the expenditure limit) and legal and accounting expenses incurred solely to ensure the campaign's compliance with the law" are exempt from that limit, and it's those figures which bring you to the $50M+ cap generally quoted.

As to that sum, Edwards spent $9.8M over the first six months, and is estimated to have spent about $8M more this quarter. Subtract from that the exempt expenditures, and he's got $33-35M left to spend between now and next August. (Obviously, if he is the nominee, he'll have no problem raising the rest of that.)

This is dramatic and worse than I ever imagined. When talking to the Edwards campaign, they stressed the state limits, and how so few things applied to it (mostly advertising, and not even the full cost, at that). They neglected to tell me the far more important overall spending cap -- the $50 million figure. And that's what makes his nomination so dangerous.

No matter how much the Edwards campaign argues that this is a decision based on principle, it's not.

For one, they argue that even if forced to go dark all summer from lack of funds, that the Democratic ticket will receive support form the DNC and allied 527s. You know -- those 527s who can raise unlimited unregulated funds? And if you can raise money through the DNC, why not raise it via the campaign? Does anyone actually think the one degree of separation materially changes things?

Put another way -- how do you think the RNC raises its dramatic numbers? Access to Bush and the levers of power, that's how. If the problem with politics is the amount of money floating around in it, depending on the DNC and unregulated 527s can't possibly (or logically) be the answer. For the Edwards camp (and its supporters) to argue that this is about the "principle" of taking money out of politics is ridiculously (and insultingly) cynical.

No, this decision wasn't based on principle. It was based on a simple cold calculation -- Edwards isn't raising the money that corporate-backed Hillary Clinton or people-powered Barrack Obama are raising. And as much as they claim that they had the money to compete in the early states, this was the only way Edwards could reach some kind of parity with the two big dogs in the race.

Based on winning the primary, this decision makes sense. But if it succeeds, we will have a handicapped nominee for a long, painful six months. The RNC, the GOP candidate, the conservative 527s (like Freedom Watch) will all be beating the shit out of our nominee, and without the ability to control message and directly fire back, we'll be at a gross disadvantage.

So what would Edwards do, depend on free media? Really? The same ones that trashed Gore and Kerry, and have already done a good number on Edwards? Rely on the good sense of the voting public? Please. If you can't talk to them, they listen to the people who can.

Money isn't everything in politics. But there's a difference being outspent $4 million (like in Montana's 2006 Senate race), or $9 million (like in Virginia's 2006 Senate race), and being outspent by $125 million. Kerry spent $175 million through the summer in 2004. Political inflation will likely make that number even bigger this time around.

For the Edwards plan to work and not hurt us, we would need:

* A ridiculously frugal Edwards effort, with nary a wasted dollar spent to win the nomination,
* Fundraising troubles for the RNC, the GOP nominee, and the conservative 527s,
* Gangbuster fundraising for the DNC and progressive 527s,
* A media willing to treat Edwards with respect and fairness,
* A public unusually resistant to typical GOP bullshit and scare tactics.

[Update: A McCain nomination, as unlikely as it appears to be, would also even out the playing field, since he has stated he will opt into the public financing system.]

That's quite a few assumptions for an election that will decide the course of the war in Iraq and who replaces Justice Stevens (which will either keep the Supreme Court "lean conservative", or push it to "batshit insane right-wing"), not to mention all the other issues and causes we care about, including, well, public financing.

Sen. Feingold has introduced the Presidential Funding Act of 2007, which would increase the primary spending limit for each participating candidate from ~$50 million to $150 million (with only $100 million of that expenditure permitted before April 1 of the election year), get rid of the state caps and do a bunch of other cool things. If you believe this system is worth preserving, it's a good start.

But to make all of that happen, we have to get elected in this current system, not hope that "running on principle" will somehow negate a $125 million Republican sleaze attack.

Howie P.S.: The real bottom line, according one observer: this is "Markos sticking a fork in Edwards."