Some derided the Dean campaign's vote on opting out of the public financing system, but it was the right thing to do considering that the people voting were the people who were going to do the donating.

Kerry should do the same--ask the people who are doing the donating whether or not they think it is a good idea. I have a feeling this time around the vote would be a little closer.

Hold the vote both online and through the mail on the Monday and Tuesday of the convention. Announce the results Thursday morning. Not only is it the right thing to do, it would make the convention quite a bit more exciting.

I'm not sure.  I have wondered about this.  $75 million is not chump change, and I'm worried about taking money away from other Demcrats.  I gave to Dean, but I haven't given to Kerry, because I'm broke.

People have made plans based on the assumption that Kerry will take the public financing.  

First of all, Jerome, I'm not as sanguine as you that Kerry could raise another $100 million between now and November, and secondly, your point that the attempt would suck money out of the down-ticket races is an important one. As much as we need Kerry in office, we need Congress--at least competitive races that force incumbents to spend more time worrying about their own asses instead of the President's ass.

I'm one of those new activists you talk about at the end--one of those people the Democratic party has returned to after lo these many years looking for money--and while I like giving, I'm limited in my ability, so I have to pick and choose my spots. I've given to Kerry and now I'm focused on Congressional races, and I'm giving all I can afford right now. Don't make me choose between Kerry and the Congressional races. Kerry's got a legitimate source of funds for the post-convention period, a source I've been paying into as long as it's been on the tax sheet. Let him take that and I'll send my $20 donations to smaller races for the rest of the year.

No, very bad idea. The "issue" of draining money from other candidates is not a throwaway. It's absolutely HUGE. If Kerry asks for it, we'll figure out a way to get him his $100m. Because we have no choice. But probably half of that, at least, will come directly out of the pockets of the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC, and most of all the candidates.

On top of that, we can't forget that Bush just has richer supporters than Kerry. If Bush is given the opportunity to opt out without taking the political heat (which a Kerry opt-out would do), then watch out. He could have another $200 million without blinking. Yes, Kerry has been outraising him, but remember that he essentially stopped fundraising for BC04 some time ago. Don't wake a sleeping dog.

I don't think there's any way Kerry does it. The August "problem" is not so bad, given that few people are home that month anyway (remember Wolfowitz's famous line about August being a bad time to "introduce produce," in reference to the Iraq invasion?). And the few who are home will be watching the Olympics, which even Bush can't afford to advertise on with any regularity.

$75M for two months of campaigning is just fine - there'd be no reason for Bush to opt out.  That means he can spend every second of his time asking for votes from the uncommitted rather than begging the choir for more dough during the final phase of the campaign.  

I see Kerry at a big disadvantage whether he opts in or out.  The Repubs have exploited the system, and have gained a big advantage on this score.

What I'd really like to see is a definitive answer to what it is Kerry can and can't do with his money once he accepts the nomination.  Can he prepay staff in July?  Can he buy ad time now that would run in October?  Can he prepay for car rentals and other things?  I've seen this question posed many times but nobody seems to know the answer.

And don't forget John Edwards base of $2K donors,the lawyers. He got nearly $10M from them fairly easily in 2003, and would probably bring double that again.

Is there any recent polling data available that tests the viability of this idea in a presidential campaign? It would be interesting to see how Americans would react to a plan like this.  Certainly, like Jerome said, it's all about charazterization.  However, instead of going after Bush, I think it would make more sense to avoid the negative characterization and establish some coherent theme out of the process. It all started with thanking the website contributors with the Edwards email...if they're going to get rid of Bush what they're going to have to do is make this a community effort.

When people invest, they take ownership.  When people feel ownership they contribute more time, $$, effort, etc. toward an effort.  Instead of this being about Bush NOT saving the taxpayers $75 million, this should be about the people in this country who want change stepping up to the plate and taking a more active role in the completion of the campaign.  Instead of being spoken to by advertisements, they're continually asked to step up and do more to effectuate change. Turn it into a movement...If we're all so concerned about Bush, then why should we have a fundraising limit or baseline? If we want our candidate to win, then why should a far-right wing member of the Republican party have a fraction (albeit) microcsopic fraction of their donated tax dollars go to someone who they would never vote for?  Make it about ownership...about duty to country...about dedication to a cause and I think you turn this issue into something people will accept...and if you're an Independent...respect.

The $75 million (for each candidate) does not come from the general treasury - it is earmarked funds, from the "check-off" box on our tax returns.  It will not help (or hurt) the deficit whether Kerry (or anyone) take (or refuses) this cash.  It'll just sit in the account.

So that argument doesn't really fly.  The alternative argument:  parity.  Kerry can say Bush has 5 extra weeks to raise $$ (although he appears to be pretty much done, and even if he raises it, he can't spend it after the convention).

So I'm conflicted.  I don't know.

(sorry for duplicate: posted this on the poll thread by mistake)

How much time would Kerry/Edwards/their staff have to spend fundraising to get the money? I'd rather they were out in swing states and not asking for cash from certain democrats.

I also think there is a diminishing return: the 10th ad buy has less impact than the 5th, but you can always run one additional campaign trip to meet and greet and generate local press coverage somewhere new.

Add to that the drain on other democratic fundraising, and opting out looks bad to me.

I would be fine with it, given a total reform package of campaigns. However, the way it's done now, it's basically susidizing the consultancy/camapign profession, which I don't support.