http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-publicfinance22jan22,0,2363122.story?coll=la-home-headlinesFor the first time since the nation launched its grand experiment with publicly financed presidential campaigns three decades ago, major party nominees in 2008 are expected to turn down all public funds.
The reason: The grant, expected to be $83.8 million, might not be enough to run a winning campaign.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York) is the first top-tier candidate to tip her hand that she intends to leave the public money on the table. Senior Clinton advisor Howard Wolfson said by e-mail Sunday that she would not take matching funds in the primary campaign or, if she wins the Democratic nomination, in the general election.
On her campaign website, Clinton is asking that donors give her $2,100 for the primary and another $2,100 for the general — a tangible sign that she won't seek matching funds in the general election. Candidates who take public money in the general election must forgo fundraising.
Using her contacts and those of President Clinton, Sen. Clinton raised nearly $40 million for her 2006 Senate race, showing she can tap moneyed interests in New York and California, two deep wells of Democratic money.
"She'll do fabulously" in the money race, said Sacramento lobbyist Darius Anderson, who helps Democrats raise money and is a business associate of one of Clinton's backers, Los Angeles billionaire Ron Burkle. "The Clinton network and the Clinton list is by far the most extensive of any Democrat."
Abandonment of the public financing system would threaten the survival of a Watergate-era reform that was supposed to limit the influence of big donors in presidential politics and enable more candidates to compete.
If major candidates walk away from public financing, "it really calls into question why it exists at all," said Robert D. Lenhard, chairman of the Federal Election Commission, a supporter of the system..