Question About Opting Out; Spending Caps, General Election Funds

[Justice]

Much is made about the candidates that opted out of spending caps (Kerry and Dean) versus the ones that did not opt out (Clark, Gephardt, Lieberman, et al). I am not questioning a candidate's decision to opt out or not - I am trying to sort out the truth of the statements regarding the impact of that decision. I've included some direct quotes from recent posts - help me sort out the truth here --

1. Some DUers say Dean should be the nominee because he opted out. That Dean is the only candidate who will have money to spend after the nomination and before the general election. True?

2. Some say that "according to FEC rules, Clark has to sit on his hands for three months after the Dem nomination, and during that time the Bush-Rove campaign can SLAUGHTER him with negative ads" Hmm, I see the DNC convention is in Boston, July 26-29, 2004 and the RNC convention is in NYC September August 30 to September 2, 2004. I Count about 30 days, give or take -- how do you get 3 months? I count these days in August - when everyone is on vacation and barely paying attention - yes?

3. Some ask "Did Dean opted out so he could spend more against the Democrats"? Is there any truth to this?

4. Some say "the Democratic nominee raise funds for the General Election under separate rules from the primary spending cap." True? If true, then a candidate would not be silenced between the nomination and the general election, correct?

5. Did Gore opt out? Did Bush spend more than Gore?

[arewethereyet]

1. as I understand it

1. Anyone who opted out has the same possible capability.
2. Don't know, sorry.
3. Don't think so, did not want the fundraising restrictions.
4. I believe thats true.
5. Yes(I believe), yes(for certain).

[Eric J in MN]

2. answers

1. Some DUers say Dean should be the nominee because he opted out. 1. 1. That Dean is the only candidate who will have money to spend after the nomination and before the general election. True?
A: The issue is between March, when the nominee will be obvious but out-of-money (but Dean and Kerry can get more money), and late July, when he is officially nominated. Kerry also opted out.
(EDIT I put "Dean and Clark can get more" before by mistake)

2. Some say that "according to FEC rules, Clark has to sit on his hands for three months after the Dem nomination, and during that time the Bush-Rove campaign can SLAUGHTER him with negative ads" Hmm, I see the DNC convention is in Boston, July 26-29, 2004 and the RNC convention is in NYC September August 30 to September 2, 2004. I Count about 30 days, give or take -- how do you get 3 months? I count these days in August - when everyone is on vacation and barely paying attention - yes?
A: Clark won't have any money from March to July.

3. Some ask "Did Dean opted out so he could spend more against the Democrats"? Is there any truth to this?
A: part of it, but mostly for March-July against Bush.

4. Some say "the Democratic nominee raise funds for the General Election under separate rules from the primary spending cap." True? If true, then a candidate would not be silenced between the nomination and the general election, correct?
A: Bush and the Democratic nominee will each have $74 million from their official nomination to November.

5. Did Gore opt out? Did Bush spend more than Gore?
A: Gore didn't opt out. Bush outspent by 2 to 1. But because the spending limit is $45 million for those who accept matching for the primaries, and Bush is raising $200 million for the primaries, this time Bush will have a 4 to 1 advantage in primary spending if Clark is the nominee.

[Justice]

3. Thanks, Helpful

You said - "The issue is between March, when the nominee will be obvious but out-of-money (but Dean and Clark can get more money), and late July, when he is officially nominated."

So if Clark was the nominee, can Clark raise more money even after March - is he restricted in any way?

[SahaleArm]

6. He's restricted to $45-Million + matching funds until the convention n/t

[Eric J in MN]

14. ooops, I meant but Dean and Kerry can get more money, not Clark

nt

[dsc]

4. some answers

1) NOt exactly. The rules state that candidate can only spend $45 million during the entire primary season. That is without regard to when the nominee is determined. Thus any candidate who doesn't opt out can only spend in total $45 million from day 1 to July 26th. Given the liklihood that the primary will exhast that from the winner that is why people are saying that people who opt in can't spend money. This problem is made worse by CFR since no one can use soft money to bankroll ads within 30 days of any election. Thus no one can run issue ads on to help our nominee. Also the party can't spend soft money at all. It was those strategies which let Clinton and Gore take those funds and not go dark.

2) No the three month period is an estimate of the time it takes to wrap up the nomination until the convention. Thus April to July is what is being discussed not July to September. It should be noted that we actually will have money to spend in that time. The drawback is that since the Democrats will have the money sooner they will have less per month to spend. Thus not only will the person go dark but they will still be outspent (on a per diem basis) afterward.

3) He had to make the decision when he did due to the fact the deadline to agree to the rules was approaching. Also some states, like Ohio, require petitions for candidates who opt out to get on the ballot. Thus he had to decide when he did. To my knowledge he hasn't violated caps in Iowa or NH as of yet.

4) correct but see above.

5)No gore stayed in the system but he did use things that the current nominee can't to get him message out.

[bain_sidhe]

7. wait... what elections?

I'm confused. You said

This problem is made worse by CFR since no one can use soft money to bankroll ads within 30 days of any election. Thus no one can run issue ads on to help our nominee.

Well, what elections are there between March and the general election? Or do primaries count... and if so, don't they only count in the state where they're being held?

[dsc]

9. Primaries count.

and it matters not what state the primary is in.

[slinkerwink]

12. that's exactly why Dean is the best candidate, and why Clark staying in

is political suicide.

[Raya]

5. Dean Sending 5 to 1 vs Gephart in IOWA and breaking Primany Limit, Not GE

Dean repeatedly refused to agree to primary spending limits.

Says he wrecked campaign finance rules to go against Bush.

But he has really skirted the rules to destroy Dem rival and tell media he is "the one to watch"

Anyone thinks different?

[dsc]

8. Do you have a site for him breaking the limit?

If so I would like to see it. And BTW I note that you don't dispute that the rules would have started back then.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Other candidates can't raise enough money to make opting out worthwhile

Do you really think that these guys are making some kind of principled stand? They just can't raise the kind of money that Dean can at this statge in the race. Whoever is the Democratic nominee will be able to raise $45 million by the end of the primary season. The problem is that Dean is the one with most money now, and will be ahrd to beat.

[AP]

10. Anyone see that article which said the matching fund fund is low on cash

so the people getting the money only got a percentage of what they should have gotten for the most recent cycle and will have to wait a few weeks for the fund to get funded before they get the rest of the money.

Who do you think that hurts? helps?

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. It hurts those who are counting on the matching funds

to keep their campaigns above water. Clark is getting matching funds, but he isn't close to running out of money. It will be very interesting to see how much Gephardt has on hand.

[AP]

15. Makes you wonder if this were an accident.

I which there were intrepid reporters out there willing to look into how this decision was made. There might be an interesting story in this.

Calling Will Pitt? Or anyone?

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. The fund is low becasue taxpayers are not checking off the box

on their income tax forms. The people have spoken.

[AP]

17. The money has to be paid, and has to come from somewhere else.

I suspect the story is that they knew the funds wouldn't be there, but they waited to do something about it until the last minute.