May 25, 2004
LEGALITY? HE SMIRKED:
Kerry justifies idea of nomination delay: But critics say legality an issue (Glen Justice and Michael Kranish, May 25, 2004, Boston Globe)
[T]wo prominent campaign finance watchdogs questioned whether it would be legal for the host committee to spend $15 million in federal funds to stage the Democratic National Convention if the event does not produce Kerry's nomination."I think there is a very strong case here that it would be illegal," said Fred Wertheimer, who runs a campaign finance organization called Democracy 21. "They received the money to conduct a nominating convention, and a nominating convention tends to include the concept of a nominee. At a minimum, they face real legal questions."
Representative Martin T. Meehan of Lowell, a fellow Democrat and coauthor of the country's new campaign finance law, agreed that the $15 million is at risk. "The question is whether it could be made up in private contributions," the congressman said. [...]
The Kerry campaign is studying alternatives, including the use of a lesser-publicized option that would enable individuals to give as much as $57,500 to national and state parties for advertising that would independently boost Kerry's candidacy. While individuals are allowed to give no more than $2,000 to Kerry for the primary campaign, Wertheimer said they can give an additional $25,000 to the national party and $10,000 to state parties, with an overall two-year limit of $57,500.
Even a dog has sense enough not to mess where it sleeps--the worst presidential campaign in modern memory though is consciously alienating it's own goo-goo ("Good Government") base. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 25, 2004 7:45 AM
We have to see. I agree that Kerry is leaving himself well exposed on the Left (by his lurch to the center flip flops) and among various Democratic special interests (African Americans, Hispanics, e.g., by his lack of appeal) and with Jews (for his wishy-washiness on Terorism). BUT, it is clear (at least as far as that pollsters is concerned) that he is counting on the "I hate Bush" to drive this crowd.
Whether it can last for another five months, and whether it can translate into more than answers to a poll, is another story. In the meantime, the self-appointed leaders for many of these groups have already committed themselves to "turn a blind eye" (quote from Bagdadh Jim, a couple of days ago). If only Democrats had decided to confront the Communist and Islamofascist threat/affront to America half as seriously as they have decided to confront/label Bush...
Posted by: MG at May 25, 2004 8:04 AMSimilar to MG's point. The polls show Bush and Kerry roughly tied. GOP and others are optimistic in that they say after a bad 2 months Bush could be doing a lot worse. Another way to look at the polls is that Kerry, who has run a pretty pathetic campaign, is tied with the President. The anybody but Bush vote will be a large segement of the Democrat vote this year - question is whether it will be enough to get Kerry into the White House.
Posted by: AWW at May 25, 2004 9:18 AMAWW - The polls are just bizarre. On the one hand, they show a statistical tie. On the other, they show that Bush is doing very well in the battleground states and is even moving some safe Democratic states (New Jersey, even California) into the battleground column. Andrew Sullivan (I think) quotes someone saying that all of Bush's latest weakness comes from losing Republican support, so I assume the Rep states are getting closer, but still not moving out of the Rep column.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 25, 2004 11:40 AMWhen you're in power, you define what is legal or not. (Paraphrase of L Ron Hubbard; Saddam and his sons would agree.)
Posted by: Ken at May 25, 2004 6:37 PM