Edwards opts out of public financing

John Edwards just surprised everyone - and first and foremost his rival campaigns - by announcing he would accept public financing during the primary campaign. Edwards made sure to emphasize this was not a decision about his campaign's financial difficulties: "This is not about a money calculation. This is about taking a stand, a principled stand, and I believe in public financing."

Public financing means that the federal government will match campaign contributions Edwards receives up to $21 million dollars, but it also means that Edwards will not be allowed to spend more then $50 million not only through the primaries but all the way through his party's convention in August! That is a long time to go with only $50 million, especially if the Republican candidate has opted out of public financing (as will certainly be the case) and can spend millions throughout the spring and early summer. The Edwards campaign is now relieved it will have as much money to spend through the primaries as the Clinton and Obama campaigns. But if it does, it will have nothing to spend for the next few months. A worrisome thought.

Even more strict are the restrictions on state-by-state spending: Edwards will only be allowed to spend around $1.5 million in Iowa (including what he has already spent) or $2.2 million in South Carolina. Would that leave Edwards with enough to compete against the Clinton and Obama onslaught?

Edwards, however, is scoring a major point here. Public financing of campaign is a huge progressive demand, and rightly so. One of Edwards's main arguments has been that Clinton is beholden to special interests, and is too eager to defend lobbyists (Edwards was greatly helped in this by Clinton herself at the YearlyKos convention). The Hsu fundraising scandal further eroded voter confidence in a clean Clinton campaign, and Edwards has been there every step of the way reminding Democrats that he will run a transparent campaign and a transparent presidency. And Edwards today put pressure on Clinton and Obama, challenging them to also adopt public financing and claiming the sole reason he took this route was because he was fed up with the corruption inherent in the American system. Congressman David Bonior, an Edwards supporter, pressed this point:

You can't buy your way to the Democratic nomination – you should have to earn the votes of the American people with bold vision and ideas. This is the most expensive presidential campaign in history, by far. And the simple fact is that the influence of money in politics – and the focus on raising money in this election – has gotten out of control. It’s time to get back to focusing on the issues that matter to the American people. That’s why John Edwards has decided to play by the rules that were designed to ensure fairness in the election process by capping his campaign spending and seeking public financing.

And Joe Trippi, one of Edwards's main adviser, immediately charged ahead, using today's decision as a campaign argument:

Iowa gets to choose between a Democrat who is taking the money of health care lobbyists and insurance lobbyists and corporate lobbyists and PACs who will almost certainly blow through the spending limits that they would have to abide by under public financing against a Democrat who has never taken a dime of PAC money and has never taken a dime of lobbyists money, and now, will stay within the public financing system in Iowa, which will give the people of Iowa the change to decide who will go to Washington and represent them on all these issues?

But Edwards will be dogged here with doubts about his sincerity. Fine, Edwards did the good thing. But why did he wait until days before the end of the 3rd Quarter, the time where the campaign probably reassessed the financial situation and realized it was not meeting its fundraising goals... Not that there is anything wrong with accepting public financing because of he cannot follow Obama and Clinton's lead, but then he cannot present this as a matter of high principle! And he cannot use his decision to blast rival campaigns for their corrupt ways...

Also not helping is the fact that Joe Trippi - the same Trippi who offered that quote blasting Clinton - managed Howard Dean's 2004 campaign. Dean opted out of public financing (along with Kerry) and Trippi said in 2003: "This campaign believes that any Democratic campaign that opted into the matching-funds system has given up on the general election."

So which is it? Is Edwards being forced by circumstances, or is he taking a principled stance? His campaign - and Joe Trippi - does not seem to understand it cannot have it both ways without furthering the doubts about Edwards's sincerity...