November 4, 2003
TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN:
Funding decision looming for Dean (CLAUDE R. MARX November 1, 2003, Rutland Herald)
Former Gov. Howard Dean must decide within the next month whether to ask the federal government to show him the money.By Dec. 1, he must file papers with the Federal Election Commission if he wants to receive about $18 million to help finance his presidential campaign through next summer.
But as with most government grants, the matching funds come at a price. Dean would have to limit the amount of money he spends to $45 million between the beginning of the year and the Democratic National Convention at the end of July. The burden could be especially heavy starting at the end of the bulk of primaries and caucuses in mid-March, when the campaign's cash flow could be low because of the expenses incurred in shoring up the nomination.
During that period, President George Bush, who has raised $85 million and has no primary opponent, will be able to air television advertisements promoting his own campaign and, presumably, attacking the Democratic nominee. Bush has said he will not apply for matching funds during the primary season. [...]
If Dean forgoes matching funds, he can spend as much as he wants during that period. And if he is the presumptive nominee, Washington lobbyists and some of the supporters of other candidates are likely to contribute to his campaigns.
We're of the opinion that all pretty much all campaign finance laws are unconstitutional and that the President, who signed CFR, and every member of Congress who voted for it should be impeached for violating their oaths of office. But this does show how canny it was politically. An issue that had obsessed the media for years is now so moribund that even a Democrat can forego public financing without much consequence.
N.B. Speaking of stories that are over: Valerie Plame.
Posted by Orrin Judd at November 4, 2003 11:48 PMOJ:
After your post, FOX news reported Dean's announcement that he will 'leave it to his supporters' whether to opt in or out. Why do I get the feeling that 'supporters' will have nothing to do with the decision. Instead, I picture Dean as a coach trying to decide whether to go for two points after a touchdown . . . let's see, I'm thirteen points down with six minutes to play . . . if I take the 18 million, I'm bound by the 45 million . . . but what if I can raise more than 45 . . .
I can guarantee that, whatever decision comes from this calculation, Dean will attribute it to his 'supporters.' Is this a Ross Perot moment, or what?
And speaking of Ross Perot, if Wesley Clark's latest paranoid rumblings about secret Bush administration memos don't bring back memories of RossMan, then nothing will. What's next, a Clark accusation that President Bush is scheming to ruin the wedding of Clark's daughter?
Fred Jacobsen
San Francisco
My guess is that he'll forgo the matching funds. IF he wins both Iowa and NH, he'll be raking it in hand over fist.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 5, 2003 3:42 AMPerhaps not - he has already said he would get rid of McAuliffe. And I still wonder how much of Dean's internet money is real, or just pledges? In the end, he will take the federal $$$.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 5, 2003 3:52 AMHow does one impeach a Member of Congress?
Posted by: Chris at November 5, 2003 10:42 AMNot over for me. We need a Congressional investigation of exactly why Wilson was selected for the mission by the CIA as being the most qualified person available. It still smells to me.
Chris: I hope you're thinking of the dirty Byrd.
Reminding me of Dean's comment about McAuliffe moves me to definately vote for him in the NH primary.
Posted by: genecis at November 5, 2003 11:49 AMIt's disappointing to see how far out of sight the Plame scandal has sunk, but I suppose in retrospect it could have been foreseen. With Republicans controlling all branches of federal government, with a ubiquitous right-wing propaganda machine controlling a significant proportion of the public media (and thus able to portray any outraged Democrat as a squawking irrelevancy), and especially in the absence of an independent counsel, the Bush Administration is pretty well free to do as it pleases. Having Ashcroft heading Justice to make sure nothing comes of the investigation helps enormously, of course. Clinton, in contrast, couldn't sneeze without facing a formal investigation into the consequences of the flying snot, or of its nefarious origins. The contrast is as informative as it will be ignored.
While I have sympathized with OJ's stated (and cynical) view that the Plame scandal was little different from standard operating procedure for administrations far predating Bush II, I always thought it deserved more play than it got. After all, it was one of the more obvious and telegenic ways of pointing out how unserious the Bush Administration really is about a meaningful national security. There were, after all, legitimate strategic (not to mention moral) reasons for the second war in Iraq, but there is little doubt that by creating another haven for terrorists and stretching American resources too thin that war has undermined our safety. Similarly, if the Bush Administration was at all concerned about the continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, they wouldn't be outing a deep-cover CIA operative involved in obtaining information on existing WMD programs.
There are too many other strains to this theme to mention--one can start with the unfunded Federal mandates for increased security at ports of entry--but the Plame affair would have made a good entry point. As ever, the Bush Administration has in its actions shown little to no concern for the matter at hand except as a tool to advance an ancillary agenda of purely political purpose. That these purposes satisfy the political agendas of right-wing ideologues is enough to permit them to overlook the lack of any concrete achievement. There will, as OJ has written, be another Al Qaeda attack on American soil. Unlike 9/11, however, it will be possible to draw a direct line from that attack to failed policies of this government.
Posted by: M. Bulger at November 6, 2003 3:05 PM