How can Clark or Edwards compete against Bush when they have

[mistertrickster]

limited themselves to federal matching funds? Bush is going to have some four to five times more money to spend than they will. You think you can overcome that kind of a funding deficit?

[democratreformed]

1. Please help me to understand

how any of our candidates will not be overshadowed by Bush when it comes to money. I'm serious. Please explain it b/c, thus far, I have honestly failed to grasp an understanding.

[mistertrickster]

2. Well, Kerry himself is worth some 500 million while Dean has

raised record amounts so far.

[Ilsa]

5. I think Kerry has limits on his personal wealth to be used, though.

I thought i heard that candidates are limited on how much of their personal wealth they could use in their campaign.

Someone, please, give us a primer!

[Beaker]

16. you can use as much of YOUR OWN money as you want-

Bill Gates could use his entire fortune to run for office, if that's what he wanted to do...
BUT-
the problem for J.F.Kerry is that the bulk of his wealth is actually his wife's wealth, and she ain't running.
even a spouse is held to federal campaign contribution limits.

[Ilsa]

3. Are there not some non-candidate orgs that are helping with that?

I don't know how it works legally, but it is something that had me worried also.

My husband thinks it could even backfire on them as the Dems could claim their candidate is limiting his advertising and the GOP is trying to brainwash the public with constant ad harassment.

[maddezmom]

4. check out this earlier thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=153466

[boxster]

6. The results in Iowa proved that money isn't everything, though

all of the Democratic candidates will doubtless face at least a 2:1 deficit, even Dean with his unprecedented fundraising prowess.

That being said, Clark has shown that he can raise incredible amounts of money in a short time, so he very likely will put up a better monetary fight than many expect.

[mistertrickster]

11. He can raise money, fine--but he taps out at 40-50 million. What does he

do when he hits the limit? That's exactly the problem.

[Chico Man]

7. There is only so much money can do

What is Bush going to do? Hire Dreamworks to do his campaign ads?

His message will still come across as hollow as it did last night.

[Blue_Roses]

8. As Bill Clinton

put it: "the GOP will always outspend us, but that doesn't mean we can't win."

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Go here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=153466

This thread explains it.

[mistertrickster]

12. So it doesn't make any difference except that Bush and the two

front runners clearly see it in their best interest not to get locked into the spending limits.

Nice spin . . . keep it up . . . see how far it gets ya.

[Bertrand]

15. Re-read Anti-Bushs post

"The spending limits only apply to the primary season, and is lifted once the convention happens" is pretty clear, but not only do you reject it without presenting a counterargument, you even try to egg incognito into an argument by insulting him.

That said, dont worry about public vs private financing. Even if everyone were to opt-in, the system is corrupt enough so that all a private interest has to do is form an advocacy group and fund the election outside of the parties, which isnt a big deal for them.



Edit: Deleted a question mark from the subject line

[tryanhas]

10. Easily

The DNC, MoveOn.org, and a lot of other groups are raising money for 2004.

There will be more than enough money to go around to compete in the state races and in the general election.

Besides, if Edwards in particular is the nominee, it will force Bush to spend money in the South where he doesn't want to, and that is important.

Bush may be leading Edwards in NC right now, but if Edwards is the nominee that is going to mean THE HIGHEST VOTER TURNOUT IN NORTH CAROLINA HISTORY!

The problem in the south is not that Republicans out number Democrats. It's just that they are more active and vote more. Democrats love large turnouts, and Republicans hate them. Larger turnouts favor Democrats.

If Edwards is the nominee, you are going to have the highest voter turnout ever in North Carolina and South Carolina where he was born, and that bodes well for Democrats.

UNDERSTAND!

There are not more Republicans in the South than Democrats. Democrats in the South just don't normally turnout.

They will if Edwards is the nominee!!!

So, for the money issue. It's not an issue. Anyone who is the nominee is going to raise more than enough money, and you don't have to get out of the campaign finance system to do it. That combined with the fact that the DNC, DLC, and other groups are going to be raising money as well.

MONEY WILL NOT BE AN ISSUE...

[Renew Deal]

13. If Kerry and Edwards beat Dean in Iowa

when Dean had the same advantage as Bush, they can beat Bush* himself.

[Walt Starr]

14. Try eight or nine times the money

and don't let anybody fool you. Come summer it will be all attack whoever is the nominee all the time.

Looks like corporate may ahve decided the Democrats absolutely must lose in '04. Changing CEO's right now might be bad for business.

[DjTj]

17. Primary funds are SEPERATE from general election funds

We've talked about it a lot on other threads.

The soft money groups will be hammering Bush in the summer, so it's not going to make a difference.

After the convention, Bush and the Dem candidate are expected to both opt back in.