Position of money strength or weakness? It's all a matter of perspective when it comes to Dem John Edwards and his campaign's decision to jump off the fundraising escalator and seek the sanctuary of matching funds. Of course, a cynical person might question the timing, so close to end of 3rd quarter fundraising deadline and all that. But Edwards campaign guru David Bonier insists that's not the case in a memo (posted below) to staff and supporters. In fact, Bonier makes a convincing case -- and spares the campaign from wasting time answering too many annoying questions about, well, fund raising. The mantra now can be -- "Hey, we've gone matching funds: how about you?" Even better they keep the option open for the general election against those filthy rich GOPers -- this may seem somewhat wishy-washy (situational political ethics) but they get credit for providing a solid rationale consistent with their campaign themes.
Bonier memo:
Yesterday, Sen. Edwards announced his decision to seek public financing for the primary
election. John himself thought long and hard about this decision and made it with the
firmest of convictions. He believes this is the right thing to do – not only for this campaign,
but for the American political process. The leadership of this campaign shares his
convictions and endorses his decision.
I want to assure you that we are doing this from a position of strength. I thought it would
be useful to cut through all the media speculation and outline as clearly and concisely as
possible exactly why we made this decision and why we believe it is a smart move
strategically for this campaign.
Why did we do this?
Quite simply, we did it because it is the right thing to do.
As you have heard John say many times over the years, elections should be about ideas – not
money. And the focus on money in this election is frankly obscene. Now, more than ever,
candidates for president should be judged on their vision, character and personal integrity –
not how much money they can throw at voters in the form of advertising and fancy
Washington consultants. And, in one of the most important elections in our lifetime,
candidates for president should be spending these last few months leading up to the primary
election focused on meeting with voters and discussing their ideas and their vision to change
America – not caught up in a fundraising contest.
The American people agree – and they want things to change. They want a president who is
accountable to them, not to big corporate interests and Washington lobbyists.
Why are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama not doing this?
It’s a good question, and one that the American people deserve to have answered. John
believes Senators Clinton and Obama, who often talk about their support for public
financing, should join him and prove that they mean what they say.
When John challenged Senator Clinton to join him in ending the practice of candidates
accepting money from Washington lobbyists, she said that wasn’t the answer – she said the
answer was public financing. And just last week, Senator Clinton said that she believes public
financing is the way to fix the broken system of corruption and buying influence in
Washington and should be the law of the land. Well, we already have a public financing
system for presidential campaigns. With this action, John is putting his money where his
mouth is. The question is: When are the other candidates going to do the same?
2
Why now?
It became clear if we didn’t lead the way by example, no one else would. There is too much
at stake in this election for the status quo to prevail.
Candidates can speak to the virtues of public financing – in theory – until they are blue in
the face. But until someone is willing to step up and lead the way toward changing the way
the system works, you can rest assured that things will remain the same.
John has never taken a dime of campaign money from PACs or Washington lobbyists – in
this campaign or in any other campaign. This gives him unmatched credibility in calling on
all Democratic presidential candidates and the Party itself to do the same. He supports
public financing of campaigns as a necessary step to reduce the influence of money in policy
making, so participating in the public financing system is simply the right thing to do.
What does it all mean?
Understand this: This in no way handicaps us in the early primary states, and it does not put
us at a disadvantage going into the general election. If anything, this decision will help us
win the nomination in two ways: our strength with the grassroots means we will get a boost
not available to candidates who depend on large contributions; and we will be running the
campaign in a way that reinforces John’s central campaign message.
Under the public financing system for presidential primaries, once a candidate demonstrates
broad-based public support by raising $5,000 of matchable contributions in each of at least
20 states, the government will match up to $250 of an individual’s contributions to that
candidate. In return, the candidate agrees to limit campaign spending for all primary
elections, limit campaign spending in each state and limit spending from personal funds to
$50,000.
The system of public financing was put in place after Watergate as a way to take power away
from the big money players and give it back to candidates who have strength in grassroots.
That’s what John’s campaign is all about. We have raised millions of dollars – more than any
other Democratic campaign at this point in any previous election. As I said, we have raised
this record amount without taking any money from PACs or Washington lobbyists. Just as
important, 90 percent of our contributions have come from donors giving $100 or less. This
is the type of real grassroots strength the public financing system was meant to encourage
and reward. By focusing on small contributions and the grassroots campaigning, the boost
we will get from being able to receive federal matching funds puts us in a better financial
position for the nomination campaign.
Does this change our strategy?
No. We are on track and moving forward with our four-state strategy, focused on winning
in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. We’ve said all along that we needed
3
to raise $40 million before Iowa. With public matching funds we are very likely to exceed
that goal.
But the key thing to remember is no candidate can buy votes in these states. You have to
earn them with bold vision and real ideas. Substance counts a lot more than money in the
places where voters can look you in the eye, judge you face to face, and question you in
detail about your plans for the country. And when it comes to substance, there’s no contest.
John has led this race on ideas – from universal health care, to the war in Iraq, to education,
global warming and helping American workers. With this decision, he extends his leadership
into the critical area of restoring the essence of our democratic government.
John’s leadership on issues is precisely why our momentum continues to grow in the states
where he has been campaigning. And this growing momentum will carry us through to the
general election.
What about the state spending limits?
As a campaign that has always had a plan to win with less money than its rival campaigns, we
were already working within a budget that makes it possible to achieve our goals and easily
stay within the spending limits. We have studied the numbers extensively, and we are
nowhere near exceeding these limits. The FEC rules are much more generous than many
seem to understand. For example, staff salaries and staff travel do not count against the
state limits – which is perfect for a grassroots campaign. Half of all expenditures in a state
don’t count against the state limit because they are treated as exempt fundraising costs. And
even the total cost of television and radio advertising does not count against the limits for
individual states. In short, the spending limits are actually quite manageable if you’re smart
about how you spend the money you are allowed to spend.
What happens between February 5th and the convention?
Rest assured, we are prepared for this campaign to go the distance. We have a
comprehensive campaign spending plan that is smart and targeted and based on a strategy to
ensure that we not only have enough money on hand to clinch the nomination but also have
a reserve to take the fight to the Republican nominee in the spring. To give you just one
example, part of this campaign is about restoring the power of the Democratic Party. Since
the party can spend money independently of its Presidential nominee, a stronger Democratic
Party will be in a position to meet the challenge of waging an effective campaign on behalf
of John Edwards and every other Democratic candidate.
What happens in the general election?
Make no mistake – we are taking a principled stand on this issue. John Edwards believes the
best thing and the right thing would be to operate the campaign under the public financing
rules for the entire presidential campaign. But he also understands that almost none of the
4
Republican candidates share this commitment. Accordingly, we will continue to raise money
for the general election so we will be ready to compete against the Republican nominee.
Once we win the nomination, John will challenge the Republican nominee to join him in
accepting public financing. Quite frankly, it’s a fight we’d welcome. If they refuse, we’ll
cross that bridge when we come to it and make the decision at that time about whether to
accept public financing. But you can be sure that we will run a campaign that is aggressive,
adequately funded, and successful.
I look forward to that day. And I know that this decision is the right way to get us there.
ADVERTISEMENTS 
