Edwards and Public Financing

Kos makes a very compelling case that John Edwards' decision to accept public financing is a dangerous one. Obviously Clinton and Obama are sucking up all the big-money cash, and with Edwards running a campaign against powerful entrenched interests like lobbyists, it makes ideological sense for him to limit spending and take the public money. But there is an element of unilateral disarmament to it. The spending limits are sharp and the loopholes you have to play to get around them are very difficult. And the biggest conundrum is that, should Edwards clear these hurdles and become the nominee, he'll have six months between the primary and the general election to wait until general election public money comes in. This is what killed John Kerry in 2004, having no money to respond to the litany of attacks like the Swift-Boaters before the convention.

Here's Markos' take:

Short term, this decision is probably necessary and good. The problem I have with this is what happens if Edwards pulls this thing off and locks this thing down on Feb. 5? [...]

What if they end up spending more to wrap up their primary than their current plan indicates. If polling suggests, pre-Feb. 5, that they can win California or Florida with a last-minute push, are they really going to say, "well, we can't spend those millions because of our long-term Summer plan!" Hell no, they'll do whatever they need to do to win, and you couldn't begrudge them that decision.

Except that we end up with a broke or seriously underfunded nominee with six months before the convention. The Edwards campaign argues that the DNC can pick up the slack. And sure, Edwards could funnel money he can't raise to the DNC to act as a proxy. But as we've seen since forever, the RNC always grossly outraises and outspends the DNC. That could change next year, of course. But again, it's a gamble.

And that's the bottom line. If all goes according to plan, then this might not be an abject disaster. But as everyone knows, no battle plans survives contact with the enemy. And I can't personally support a primary candidate that could put us in a difficult position for an entire six months leading up to the fall general election. It's just simply too dangerous.

I still believe that in a Democratic year, with the stain of Bush all over the Republican Party, you can still vote your conscience and choose the candidate that best matches your vision. But this is a calculated risk. I believe in public financing, and the progressive movement certainly wouldn't let a nominee hang out to dry, but going up against the GOP machine with just public money really is bringing a knife to a gunfight. It doesn't bode well for Edwards.