Full Version: No Democratic Nomination?
I've seen several references of the past week or so to this in the media, and they talked about it yesterday on Meet the Press. Apparently the Kerry campaign is toying with the idea of John Kerry not accepting the Democratic Party's nomination at their convention in Boston and delaying that acceptance for several weeks to allow him to raise and spend more money before he formally accepts the nomination and federal funds for the campaign. From Meet the Press......
This to me seems to be yet another end run around campaign finance laws by the Democratic Party. I thought they were the champions of campaign finance reform.
Questions for discussion.....
1. Is this indeed an "end run" around Campaign finance laws, or simply "leveling the playing field"?
2. Should the TV Networks air a political convention that they know in advance won't produce a nomination, and if so, should they be obligated to give equal time to a Republican "rally" in addition to the Republican Convention?
3. Do you think this idea of Kerry's is a good idea?
QUOTE
MR. RUSSERT: David Broder, we all thought we were going to go to Boston in the last week of July for the nomination of John Kerry. And now a trial balloon has been floated by the campaign of the Democratic candidate, saying, "Well, we'll probably have a Democratic rally there and a great event, but he may not formally accept the nomination of his party," because he can then delay having to receive public campaign funding until, say, Labor Day and continue to raise a lot of other hard money, contributions which will allow him to compete with George Bush. What's going on?
MR. BRODER: What's going on is money, money, money. I have to say that we used to blame Republicans as being the party where money really drove everything. It's the Democrats that are allowing money to drive everything. They moved up the primary campaign dates so that they could have more time in the spring to raise money. Now, they want to move back the nomination time so they can raise more money in the fall. It is ridiculous. They are destroying institution after institution of political significance by this preoccupation with chasing money.
Ken Melman from the Bush campaign called yesterday and said, "If the networks go along with this scheme and cover the four nights of the Democratic Convention as a political rally, which does not produce a nomination, we will demand four nights of coverage of our rallies there." And I said to him, "Why don't you just move your date back? You have the president defer his accepting the nomination for another five weeks, and then you can go on raising money, and we'll end up with two parties, neither of which has an official nominee, and Ralph Nader will be the only candidate out there."
MR. HARWOOD: Tim, this is a dangerous move for the reason that David Broder is suggesting. There are four big events between now and the election: the June 30 transition of sovereignty in Iraq, the two major party conventions and debate season. John Kerry has control of two of those things, his nominating convention and the debates. If they play games with when he gets nominated, they could jeopardize their news coverage of the nomination. That's going to be very important for him introducing himself to the American people.
MR. SAFIRE: This is the stupidest move that John Kerry could possibly make. Can you imagine--after 200 years of conventions and all, every speechwriter has always written an acceptance speech, and the key moment of an acceptance speech, right at the beginning, where the candidate stands up in front of the convention and says, "I accept your nomination," and the place goes wild and everybody has a spontaneous demonstration. Can you imagine John Kerry getting up and saying, "Thank you for that nomination. I'll accept it in a month"? It's going to ring hollow.
MR. BRODER: What's going on is money, money, money. I have to say that we used to blame Republicans as being the party where money really drove everything. It's the Democrats that are allowing money to drive everything. They moved up the primary campaign dates so that they could have more time in the spring to raise money. Now, they want to move back the nomination time so they can raise more money in the fall. It is ridiculous. They are destroying institution after institution of political significance by this preoccupation with chasing money.
Ken Melman from the Bush campaign called yesterday and said, "If the networks go along with this scheme and cover the four nights of the Democratic Convention as a political rally, which does not produce a nomination, we will demand four nights of coverage of our rallies there." And I said to him, "Why don't you just move your date back? You have the president defer his accepting the nomination for another five weeks, and then you can go on raising money, and we'll end up with two parties, neither of which has an official nominee, and Ralph Nader will be the only candidate out there."
MR. HARWOOD: Tim, this is a dangerous move for the reason that David Broder is suggesting. There are four big events between now and the election: the June 30 transition of sovereignty in Iraq, the two major party conventions and debate season. John Kerry has control of two of those things, his nominating convention and the debates. If they play games with when he gets nominated, they could jeopardize their news coverage of the nomination. That's going to be very important for him introducing himself to the American people.
MR. SAFIRE: This is the stupidest move that John Kerry could possibly make. Can you imagine--after 200 years of conventions and all, every speechwriter has always written an acceptance speech, and the key moment of an acceptance speech, right at the beginning, where the candidate stands up in front of the convention and says, "I accept your nomination," and the place goes wild and everybody has a spontaneous demonstration. Can you imagine John Kerry getting up and saying, "Thank you for that nomination. I'll accept it in a month"? It's going to ring hollow.
This to me seems to be yet another end run around campaign finance laws by the Democratic Party. I thought they were the champions of campaign finance reform.
Questions for discussion.....
1. Is this indeed an "end run" around Campaign finance laws, or simply "leveling the playing field"?
2. Should the TV Networks air a political convention that they know in advance won't produce a nomination, and if so, should they be obligated to give equal time to a Republican "rally" in addition to the Republican Convention?
3. Do you think this idea of Kerry's is a good idea?
I am not sure I would have ever characterized the democratic party as the party of campaign finance reform. I find that campaign finance rules remain very confusing.
First I thought that both Bush and Kerry had opted out of federal money because of the amounts they were able to raise outside of the system. Maybe this was just for the nomination process.
I have yet to see a presidential candidate step up and be for a system that did not work to his advantage. I do give credit to President Bush and Republican interest groups for not using or abusing the available loopholes this year. But if Kerry starts gaining more of an advantage from this that Bush does by playing by the spirit of the rules, I don't see the Republicans taking it sitting down.
I think this situation is politics as usual. And as usual money is as important or more important that votes. I think the average person loses in this situation, in both parties.
Kerry may be onto something important. politically. The difference in timing between the Republican and Democratic conventions may but the democrats at a distinct disadvantage, and Kerry alone may not have the power to move the convention. I think it is fair for Kerry to explore his options out there on this issue. I also think that considerations such as television coverage for a faux convention need to be taken into account in terms of fair play.
I would hope (but I'm not holding my breath) that if Kerry feels that this move needs to be done to keep the war chest full enough to compete with the Herculean treasure chest being amassed for Bush, that he will explain what he is doing clearly and do it an a legal and ethical way.
Instead it will probably bring out the worst of both sides and end up in court.
First I thought that both Bush and Kerry had opted out of federal money because of the amounts they were able to raise outside of the system. Maybe this was just for the nomination process.
I have yet to see a presidential candidate step up and be for a system that did not work to his advantage. I do give credit to President Bush and Republican interest groups for not using or abusing the available loopholes this year. But if Kerry starts gaining more of an advantage from this that Bush does by playing by the spirit of the rules, I don't see the Republicans taking it sitting down.
I think this situation is politics as usual. And as usual money is as important or more important that votes. I think the average person loses in this situation, in both parties.
Kerry may be onto something important. politically. The difference in timing between the Republican and Democratic conventions may but the democrats at a distinct disadvantage, and Kerry alone may not have the power to move the convention. I think it is fair for Kerry to explore his options out there on this issue. I also think that considerations such as television coverage for a faux convention need to be taken into account in terms of fair play.
I would hope (but I'm not holding my breath) that if Kerry feels that this move needs to be done to keep the war chest full enough to compete with the Herculean treasure chest being amassed for Bush, that he will explain what he is doing clearly and do it an a legal and ethical way.
Instead it will probably bring out the worst of both sides and end up in court.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ May 24 2004, 09:33 AM)
First I thought that both Bush and Kerry had opted out of federal money because of the amounts they were able to raise outside of the system. Maybe this was just for the nomination process.
Just for clarification. Both Kerry and Bush opted out of the federal matching funds process for the pre-nomination process. Accepting matching funds limits the amount of money you can spend prior to the nomination. However, once one becomes the official party nominee, they are limited to $75 MILLION (I think) in the amount they can spend until election day. That limit kicks in the second they officially accept their party's nomination.
edited to add....
From The Los Angeles Times (may require registration)........
QUOTE
Under federal campaign finance law, the delay could leave Kerry with more money for television ads and other campaign needs in the final weeks of the race. But news that Kerry was weighing a delay in the nomination came amid concerns in Boston, the convention's host city, over traffic disruptions — up to 40 miles of downtown roads are to be closed — and potential harm to the city's economy.
"Boston will be open for business," Kerry said. "People will make a lot of money. We're going to have a full-fledged convention, and people are going to have a fantastic time. And all this talk about reduced this, that, is silly."
Kerry and President Bush will each be eligible for $75 million in federal money once their respective parties make their nominations. But Bush's nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York is scheduled five weeks after Kerry's in Boston, so the Democratic candidate would have to make his public money last that much longer. Neither candidate can raise or spend private money once he is nominated.
"Boston will be open for business," Kerry said. "People will make a lot of money. We're going to have a full-fledged convention, and people are going to have a fantastic time. And all this talk about reduced this, that, is silly."
Kerry and President Bush will each be eligible for $75 million in federal money once their respective parties make their nominations. But Bush's nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York is scheduled five weeks after Kerry's in Boston, so the Democratic candidate would have to make his public money last that much longer. Neither candidate can raise or spend private money once he is nominated.
From what I've read, it seems that the Republican National Convention in 2004 is one of the latest ever (late August-early September). That means that Bush has about a month to spend $75 million. If the Democratic National Convention starts in late July, that leaves at least 2 months for Kerry to spend $75 million. If Kerry doesn't accept the nomination until some date after the convention, he has more time to spend money freely. This election seems to rely heavily on advertisements and the candidates travelling from place to place, so it only seems fair that both candidates have similar restrictions regarding how much money they can spend in x amount of time. I don't know why they don't just move the date back (maybe they cant?, I'm not sure).
To answer your questions, Aquilla, i think this is just leveling the playing fields. Although it would be rather anticlimactic to have this big event and not nominate someone.
To answer your questions, Aquilla, i think this is just leveling the playing fields. Although it would be rather anticlimactic to have this big event and not nominate someone.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ May 24 2004, 11:13 AM)
2. Should the TV Networks air a political convention that they know in advance won't produce a nomination, and if so, should they be obligated to give equal time to a Republican "rally" in addition to the Republican Convention?
I don't believe they are obligated to show the conventions. Unfortunately, they have become more of a showcase rather than a real slug-fest over nominees and platforms. We need to somehow get them going again, but I'm not sure how you would do that. It's sad that the conventions have taken the slide that they have in recent years.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ May 25 2004, 11:42 AM)
QUOTE(Aquilla @ May 24 2004, 11:13 AM)
2. Should the TV Networks air a political convention that they know in advance won't produce a nomination, and if so, should they be obligated to give equal time to a Republican "rally" in addition to the Republican Convention?
I don't believe they are obligated to show the conventions. Unfortunately, they have become more of a showcase rather than a real slug-fest over nominees and platforms. We need to somehow get them going again, but I'm not sure how you would do that. It's sad that the conventions have taken the slide that they have in recent years.
Question for further information:
Who sets the dates of these conventions?
Is it the heads of each party? Or a specific commission?
Just wondering if the reigns of control are in the party's hands, or an outside agency. If it's in the party's hands, then why not place the convention near the end of the season as the Republicans have done?
Each political party sets the date and place for their respective conventions. The strategy that the Democrats chose this year was an early primary season and an early convention. The thought at the time was that they would have difficulty raising money and didn't want to run out before the federal funds kicked in. As it turns out, Kerry has raised more money that they thought he would and so now they want to change the decision they made. Bascially, it's all about the money.
1. Is this indeed an "end run" around Campaign finance laws, or simply "leveling the playing field"?
Well the playing field is FAR from level. With Bush having 5 more weeks to spend his private money. If the DNC can legally get away with this, they should. I don't understand the rules enough know why these conventions are not held the same weekend or at least on consecutive weekends.
2. Should the TV Networks air a political convention that they know in advance won't produce a nomination, and if so, should they be obligated to give equal time to a Republican "rally" in addition to the Republican Convention?
Yes, but the networks would have to air the formal Nomination party, that is of equal length to the Rep. Convention. Fair is fair.
3. Do you think this idea of Kerry's is a good idea?
I don't think this is Kerry's idea. I have a feeling that someone in the Kerry camp suggested this just to pick a nerve or two amongst republicans, and it appears to be working. Kerry will accept the nomination at the convention, they are just getting a laugh at the moment from the stir it has caused. John's like that, a good natured guy that has some fun now and then.
Well the playing field is FAR from level. With Bush having 5 more weeks to spend his private money. If the DNC can legally get away with this, they should. I don't understand the rules enough know why these conventions are not held the same weekend or at least on consecutive weekends.
2. Should the TV Networks air a political convention that they know in advance won't produce a nomination, and if so, should they be obligated to give equal time to a Republican "rally" in addition to the Republican Convention?
Yes, but the networks would have to air the formal Nomination party, that is of equal length to the Rep. Convention. Fair is fair.
3. Do you think this idea of Kerry's is a good idea?
I don't think this is Kerry's idea. I have a feeling that someone in the Kerry camp suggested this just to pick a nerve or two amongst republicans, and it appears to be working. Kerry will accept the nomination at the convention, they are just getting a laugh at the moment from the stir it has caused. John's like that, a good natured guy that has some fun now and then.
I'll have to leave it to the professionals (experts?) to figure out how important having this extra money is for the campaign as opposed to having a meaningful convention.
I don't think it's a good idea, at least as far as the symbolism goes, because it conveys the message that the convention really doesn't matter. So what's the point of going?
I don't think it's a good idea, at least as far as the symbolism goes, because it conveys the message that the convention really doesn't matter. So what's the point of going?
QUOTE(Government Mule @ May 25 2004, 02:23 PM)
1. Is this indeed an "end run" around Campaign finance laws, or simply "leveling the playing field"?
Well the playing field is FAR from level. With Bush having 5 more weeks to spend his private money. If the DNC can legally get away with this, they should. I don't understand the rules enough know why these conventions are not held the same weekend or at least on consecutive weekends.
Well the playing field is FAR from level. With Bush having 5 more weeks to spend his private money. If the DNC can legally get away with this, they should. I don't understand the rules enough know why these conventions are not held the same weekend or at least on consecutive weekends.
Bush gets 5 more weeks to RAISE private money. Once that $75 million is accepted, no more fundraisers. But the private money the candidates still have left is theirs to spend by my understanding.
And, I agree, this could just be a ploy. One to get you to watch the convention even if the results are pre-ordained. Hey, you want to know what will happen next season on West Wing with Donna, right?
No it is not raise it is spend. The idea is to make the spending amount the same because boohoo not everyone can raise the same amount and someone might actually have an advantage over another in a competitive race. Once you accept the federal funds..you can only use those federal funds to sell your presidency to the American public. It is all part of that "leveling the playing field" and taking the influence of money out of politics that was promised with CFR. Obviously it is a terrible failure being that the dem party is altering how the nomination process has been done in the past as a means to level the playing field (I thought we already did that?) and admittedly because cash is so important in this election (I thought we were suppose to diffuse that whole cash thing too?)
Kerry so often forgets he has a voting record but you can be assured the Reps will remind him. Kerry voted for CFR..and now we have him alluding to the idea that these CFRs should be avoided in order to have a fair election.
2. Should the TV Networks air a political convention that they know in advance won't produce a nomination, and if so, should they be obligated to give equal time to a Republican "rally" in addition to the Republican Convention?
No I don't think the TV networks nor the American people should have to be subjected to the utter nonsense and bore of the political conventions anymore. Kerry doesn't have to announce he will accept because everyone already knows he has..he did it months ago. Sick of these things anyways..not everyone wants to hang out with a bunch of rep and dems let alone have to watch them all hanging out together.
3. Do you think this idea of Kerry's is a good idea?
politically no it is bad bad idea. The reps have made this whole flip-flop thing a big seller and this will just further that. I see this as a very unfriendly independent move for Kerry. Not to mention as I said before he has a voting record and he did vote for CFR. I like to think of it as something Kerry deserves..this little 5 wk penalty for mucking around with the Constitution.
Kerry so often forgets he has a voting record but you can be assured the Reps will remind him. Kerry voted for CFR..and now we have him alluding to the idea that these CFRs should be avoided in order to have a fair election.
2. Should the TV Networks air a political convention that they know in advance won't produce a nomination, and if so, should they be obligated to give equal time to a Republican "rally" in addition to the Republican Convention?
No I don't think the TV networks nor the American people should have to be subjected to the utter nonsense and bore of the political conventions anymore. Kerry doesn't have to announce he will accept because everyone already knows he has..he did it months ago. Sick of these things anyways..not everyone wants to hang out with a bunch of rep and dems let alone have to watch them all hanging out together.
3. Do you think this idea of Kerry's is a good idea?
politically no it is bad bad idea. The reps have made this whole flip-flop thing a big seller and this will just further that. I see this as a very unfriendly independent move for Kerry. Not to mention as I said before he has a voting record and he did vote for CFR. I like to think of it as something Kerry deserves..this little 5 wk penalty for mucking around with the Constitution.
QUOTE
1. Is this indeed an "end run" around Campaign finance laws, or simply "leveling the playing field"?
Of course it is leveling the playing field. Kerry has gained and is gaining strong grassroots support from Dean's efforts and legacy. There is no good reason to throw away time to use all these small donations to further the cause while letting the Bush campaign spend away its millions without restriction.
This does point out a weakness in the CFR law. Maybe we'll hear from Republicans how the rule should be set to a solid date? I'm not holding my breath.
QUOTE
2. Should the TV Networks air a political convention that they know in advance won't produce a nomination, and if so, should they be obligated to give equal time to a Republican "rally" in addition to the Republican Convention?
You mean there's a possibility that Kerry or Bush won't be nominated? These are just rallies anyway.
QUOTE
3. Do you think this idea of Kerry's is a good idea?
Brilliant.
What televised spectacle is more bonecrushingly boring than the political conventions held by the two major parties? Endless shots of people milling around on the floor, dull speech followed by dull speech,and not a shred of real news or serious discussions of the issues. Informercials have more entertainment value.
The party platform has already been written which the nominee will feel free to ignore. The running mate has already been selected and background checked up the wazoo. Maybe some speaker will say something dumb over a live microphone, but otherwise it's just a stone snooze. It's just two or three days of really lousy TV.
Conventions are as scripted and controlled as a Hollywood movie set with about as much chance for something spontaneous to happen. Most of the television networks abandoned the gavel-to-gavel coverage for selected highlights. If you want to watch this junk from start to finish, that's what C-SPAN is for.
If Kerry is going to win this thing, he can't cede the advantage to Bush. So he passes on his coronation. Big deal! What difference is it going to really make? The conventioneers will still get plastered, eat too much, cheat on their spouses, wear funny hats and throw confetti. As regards Mr. Broder and Mr. Safire's worries about the venerable institution of political conventions being rendered useless and money being the engine that drives the process I've got four words for them: BUY A FREAKIN' CALENDAR. It's 2004 and the impact of political conventions faded away a loooooonnnng time ago.
This is a "inside-the-Beltway" story and of interest most to pundits, partisans and political junkies. Nobody else is paying this "controversy" any attention.
The party platform has already been written which the nominee will feel free to ignore. The running mate has already been selected and background checked up the wazoo. Maybe some speaker will say something dumb over a live microphone, but otherwise it's just a stone snooze. It's just two or three days of really lousy TV.
Conventions are as scripted and controlled as a Hollywood movie set with about as much chance for something spontaneous to happen. Most of the television networks abandoned the gavel-to-gavel coverage for selected highlights. If you want to watch this junk from start to finish, that's what C-SPAN is for.
If Kerry is going to win this thing, he can't cede the advantage to Bush. So he passes on his coronation. Big deal! What difference is it going to really make? The conventioneers will still get plastered, eat too much, cheat on their spouses, wear funny hats and throw confetti. As regards Mr. Broder and Mr. Safire's worries about the venerable institution of political conventions being rendered useless and money being the engine that drives the process I've got four words for them: BUY A FREAKIN' CALENDAR. It's 2004 and the impact of political conventions faded away a loooooonnnng time ago.
This is a "inside-the-Beltway" story and of interest most to pundits, partisans and political junkies. Nobody else is paying this "controversy" any attention.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ May 26 2004, 02:15 PM)
This is a "inside-the-Beltway" story and of interest most to pundits, partisans and political junkies. Nobody else is paying this "controversy" any attention.
That's why I brought the topic up here instead of some message board dealing with "good TV" like the endless re-runs of "Friends" and the so-called "reality TV" shows that dominate prime time.
People here tend to be more tuned to poitics that most I think. As it turns out, Kerry announced today that he would indeed accept the nomination in Boston so this topic is now out-dated I guess. It will guarantee him a prime time TV slot for his acceptance speech.Before this topic gets closed though, I thought it might be useful to point out to people why the "drama" of political conventions has disappeared. Back in the "good old days", nominations were determined in the infamous "smoke-filled rooms" by party bosses and quite naturally, regular people in the party came to kind of resent that sort of thing. That led to the primary system where the regular people actually had a chance to vote for their party's nomination. It also removed most of the drama from the convention since we all knew how it would end. So, we hear now how such things are boring and are far more interested in who's going to be voted off the island, or who's going to get fired, or which babe in a bikini can eat the most bugs instead of who might be the next President of the United States......
Whose fault is that?I've said it before and no doubt will say it again, but we live in a very strange time I think.
Aquilla's correct, it appears this topic is now moot.
CNN - Kerry to Accept Nomination in Boston
Thank you to all who participated in this debate
CNN - Kerry to Accept Nomination in Boston
Thank you to all who participated in this debate
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.