Wasn't McCain-Feingold supposed to take big money out of politics?
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, April 10, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
With Democrats crowing that their presidential candidates raised record sums of money and are therefore destined to capture the White House, there needn't be any more debate. Sens. John McCain and Russ Fiengold failed miserably in their attempt to drive money from politics.
In 2004, the first presidential year that McCain-Fiengold restrictions were in place, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry turned down federal matching funds in the primaries so they wouldn't have to live under federal spending caps until after accepting their respective party's nominations. That year also saw the rise of unaccountable, independent political organizations, driven by the moneyed political base of each party. MoveOn.org, for one.
Now Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are shattering any illusion that money isn't central to winning the presidency. Together the two senators raised more than $50 million in the first quarter of this year and are enjoying reams of media coverage for the feat and for having far outpaced Republican candidates.
Shortly before the close of the quarter, Mrs. Clinton made it known that her fund raising wasn't simply about paying for ads and other campaign related expenses. Donating to her campaign was also to be a political statement meant to show that she was still the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination.
As the senator's husband, Bill Clinton, said in an email to supporters late last month, the fund raising of the first quarter of this year was the "first crucial test" for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign. And it was a test she nearly aced. She took in $26 million between Jan. 1 and March 31, which, when added to the $10 million left over from her 2006 Senate campaign, adds up to an impressive $36 million.
But there is evidence she fudged in an attempt to outdistance Mr. Obama. She hasn't revealed how much of her money has been raised for the primaries vs. the general election. Individuals can give candidates $2,300 for each, so that candidates have to hold back spending anything over the limit for the primary. Mr. Obama isn't attempting a similar obfuscation. He told the press that he exceeded his fund-raising goals by raking in more than $25 million, more than $23 million of which is available for the Democratic primaries. Using the Internet and building a network of some 100,000 donors, he is at least matching Mrs. Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton likely had some inkling she would face pressure to win the race for campaign dollars, what pundits call the "invisible primary." Mr. Obama is a media darling. And John Edwards, a former senator and trial lawyer, now has what his political campaigns have always lacked, a compelling human story as his wife battles cancer. He could easily become the consensus challenger should Mr. Obama falter. Mrs. Clinton needed big bucks to counter both men and make it appear she was still the inevitable Democratic nominee.
This isn't the world that Sens. McCain and Feingold hoped to create with limits on individual donations, party expenditures and spending in coordination with political campaigns. But it is the political world Hillary has known all along she would inhabit. She's already said she will eschew federal matching funds for the general election as well as the primaries. That would free her to spend whatever she's legally able to squeeze out of the Democratic donor base, though she'd still have raise that money in relatively small chunks.
But now Mrs. Clinton is getting a run for the money. Mr. Obama will likely have to demonstrate that he can keep up his fund-raising pace and Mr. Edwards, who raised some $14 million in the first quarter, is going to have to step it up to show he can be competitive not only with his Democratic rivals but also with the eventual Republican nominee. Right now, money is the message.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com.
opinionjournal.com |
