ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Edwards memo defends matching funds

Posted: Friday, September 28, 2007 3:12 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC/NJ’s Tricia Miller
In a memo obtained by NBC News/National Journal, Edwards campaign manager David Bonior tried to reassure supporters that the campaign made the decision to accept public financing on principle, not because it was struggling financially.

"It became clear if we didn't lead by example, no one would," Bonior wrote.


An aide to the campaign expounded: "He's been thinking about it for a while now and watching Clinton on the Sunday shows talk about how public financing was the answer to all this, [we] figured we'd call her bluff."

In the memo, Bonior explained that Edwards would still operate comfortably within its four-state strategy, which the campaign has previously said would cost $40 million.

"This in no way handicaps us in the early primary states, and it does not put us at a disadvantage going into the general election," he wrote.

Clinton and Obama have said they support public financing of all elections but have made no move to accept public financing for this race. Edwards said he would also challenge the eventual Republican nominee to accept public financing, but he has also said his decision to accept matching funds in the general would depend on his opponent's decision.

In the memo Bonior wrote: "John Edwards believes the best thing and the right thing would be to operate the campaign under the public financing rules for the entire presidential campaign. But he also understands that almost none of the Republican candidates share this commitment. Accordingly, we will continue to raise money for the general election so we will be ready to compete against the Republican nominee.

"Once we win the nomination, John will challenge the Republican nominee to join him in accepting public financing. ... If they refuse, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it and make the decision at that time about whether to accept public financing."

The aide insisted, as Bonior did, that the decision was made on principle.

"[Voters] can choose between a candidate bought and sold by special interests or someone who's campaigning within the ethical guidelines established by public financing," the aide said.

But coming just three days before the end of the third quarter fundraising period and since he didn’t do so when this campaign started, they may have an uphill battle in selling this message. Considering all the negative press coverage Edwards received today regarding this decision, this memo was a necessity.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

"Clinton and Obama have said they support public financing of all elections but have made no move to accept public financing for this race."

This is incorrect, Obama agreed to matching funds in the general if the Republican nominee does the same, and announced it months ago.
For years the Republicans have beat is with money.  Gore could have won if he had not run out of money and had to go without airtime in states like Ohio for the last 3 weeks of the campaign while the Republicans spent freely.

I will not support Democrats ceding what should be a financial advantage in '08.  Let the Republicans feel a financial onslaught from a challenger for once as Clinton drops an avalanch of cash on their head.

Oh and lets be honest.  Edwards isn't raising enough money to compete and unlike Romney, or Kerry in '04, Edwards isn't about to put any of his own money up.
Forget supporters; The Edwards camp will have to reassure the media that their campaign isn't a one-way road to the second-tier.

http://www.political-buzz.com/
But Obama's not doing it in the primaries, where it counts. Look, I doubt people realize that this election is different from any other in history in terms not just of the obscene amount of money that's been raised but also of the money that's required to compete in a foreshortened primary season.

This is the most brilliant thing Edwards could have done, especially coming off a strong debate performance. He has now truly distinguished himself from the rest of the candidates. Pundits are trying to spin this as a sign of weakness, but it's not weakness; it's leadership. Edwards is now, without a doubt, the most viable alternative to the corporate Clinton machine.

You can bet this has changed the nature of a race that was being determined by media coverage and pocketbooks starpower. Edwards just made it about the American people again.
Mark in Boston- Brilliant move it's not- he had no choice- No candidate on the Democratic side can opt for public financing and win against the Republican- sorry- this is too important- Maybe Edwards should start really telling the truth- not just spinning- Surprised he didn't have his wife break the news- This is a trial lawyer who made a fortune doing personal injury law- he had tv commercials soliciting clients for goodness sake-
Mark - He very well may have done all that you said.  But he's also made it difficult to compete past January - so he is, essentially, putting all his eggs in the early primary/caucus basket.
You guys are missing the big picture: Edwards is single-handedly turning this race into something that's about more than money. He has been the boldest Democratic in the policy department (releasing substantive plans months before the other candidates) and now he's given himself a talking point that allows him to draw even wider distinctions between him and the lobbby-loving Hillary Clinton.

Edwards will be very competitive in the general: his campaign has already raised more money than any other Democrat in primary history (with the exception, of course, of Clinton and Obama) and has announced that it will earmark funds to keep him competitive. The DNC can pick up the rest. You can bet that any Democrat that wins the nomination will receive an unprecedented amount of support from people who are fed up with the current administration. Republicans can't buy their way out of the mess they've made. (Besides, keep in mind that accepting public financing was common practice for candidates before the system became so rigged with big money--Edwards is all about changing a system that's rigged against regular Americans, and you can bet a lot of people will tune into that message).

Moreover, Edwards matches up better head-to-head against the Republican candidates better than any other Democrat. Ladies and Gents, this horserace just got a whole lot more interesting.  
Edwards is done.  He had two chances, Slim and None, and Slim just went out the door.
Mr. Edwards is toast now. Senators Clinton and Obama, and perhaps Biden too, will be able to outspend and outmaneuver him. I think disappointing fundraising numbers will be released next week.
First Read, I did a google pictures search and immediately found many pictures of Edwards without a funny expression. Maybe you could come up with something different?
I saw this well reasoned argument by another blogger about how and why Edwards can manage with public financing:

"The republicans, mid-way through the 2004 cycle, found a loophole that allows the party to spend unlimited hard-money on behalf of the candidate, so long as the ad is on behalf of the entire party as well as the candidate. So that if Edwards becomes the nominee, the DNC can raise and spend unlimited hard money during the summer and fall, so long as the ads mention that he is a democrat, or that he's running against "republicans."

There's little doubt, in this cycle, that our nominee is going to run as a democrat and against republicans.

As for the state caps, thats also only on expenses by the campaign itself. IEs on his behalf don't count against the cap. Given that his strategy, under any circumstance, is going to rely heavily on support from allied groups, esp in his field effort. So its not necessarily going to hurt him as much there either.

As someone who has a hard time supporting even liberal democrats who don't make campaign finance a major issue, I'm actually glad to see him do this. I realize its out of necessity, but the recognition that without some public financing, we're going to have nothing but corporate Democratic candidates forever is an important part of his argument.

Since my small contributions, unlike the maxed-out donors that are powering Clinton, will be 100% matched, I'll give some more now."

I agree-- absolutely.


It's curtains for Johnny and that is unfortunate.  I supported him in 2004 and in this cycle also, but he has run so far to the left he gave up the moderation that would have made him our best candidate.  With this announcement, it is clear he is no longer a viable candidate.  It's a two person race now, but only if Obama wins Iowa.  If Clinton wins it, it's all over.
Time to go find some more high profile medical malpractice cases he can win in less then 90 days and fatten his wallet.
Too much money in our elections, too many pundits telling you who is winning, who is losing. Money in everybody's pocket.Our primary system is broken.
I hate to say this, but game over for John Edwards. While I will probably vote for him and think he'd make a pretty good president, this just isn't a good sign.

I'm one hundred percent in favor of public financing for all candidates in all parties, but Edwards can't say one day that the most important factor we should consider when voting for the next president is how honest they are, and then say that he's doing this because it's the right thing to do. He's simply running out of money.
Let there be light - Edwards is at least as well informed as the democratic constituency .... he knows better than most that despite his supporters he's a long shot at best.... the Clinton machine takes no prisoners and the momentum is building.  Edwards and Obama need to start thinking about if and where they will fit into a democratic administration under Hillary.  In my opinion the momentum for a female president has been building sub rosa for a long time - you don't think the Clintons are smart enough to decipher the political undertow??  Gift-wrapped from George and Mitt ....
thank you Jesus.  
John Edwards is taking a step forward to show that he is really a man of the people.  This election is getting nasty with money.  All should accept public money..let's have the American people decide the election rather than the fat wallets of some.  So many people cannot afford to contribute any money to a campaign especially after 7 years under the republicans.  Why turn this thing into a money race?  Can't we just chose the best person for the job?  I hope we can and do and that person is John Edwards.
Hypocrite.
He's right about the whole "two Americas" bit.  He's just wrong about the line of demarcation.  There are those of us who will make it on our own or die trying, and those who are always looking for a handout from the government of money stolen from taxpayers.  Apparently, Edwards is one of the latter.

If CORPORATE WELFARE is so wrong, how can he believe CANDIDATE WELFARE is some noble principle?


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=385769

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google