Yesterday, John Edwards made the stunning announcement that he'll accept spending limits and take public financing to run his presidential primary campaign. It's a courageous move, as Common Cause Prez Bob Edgar says in this press release.
Most of the chatter has centered on what this means for the horse race: is Edwards worried about falling too far behind his rivals, Obama and Clinton? Does he expect low numbers when fundraising is reported on October 1? If he were to wrap up the Democratic nomination, likely in February, what will this mean for Edwards from March through the convention?
All good questions, and I expect each one addresses part of his reasoning. But the bigger story here--beyond the 2008 Democratic primary race, beyond the 2008 race as a whole--is that we have a serious problem in how we finance our campaigns, from the presidency on down, in this country. And the experience and analysis of Edwards' decision drives that point home.
First, what of the merits of public funding over private financing? In his announcement on CNN, Edwards says:
I see Washington awash in money the way it is, and when I'm on the campaign trail, I constantly hear from people outside of Washington--how worried they are about the way the system is functioning in Washington.
His analysis is spot on, and he deserves kudos for that. Wealthy special interests wield great political power and voters are increasingly suspicious of who is calling the shots in Washington. Indeed, part of Edwards' challenge is that the presidential public financing system is outdated in its current form, which is why we've pushed Congress to pass a bill that would update the system to reflect the costlier and longer election cycle.
But on a larger level, John Edwards taking public financing--and the resulting buzz--underscores how scarily important multimillion dollar fundraising is to this campaign and to many others. What does the average voter see in all this? That we're three months before the FIRST primary and over a year before the general election, yet the question of who can win the Presidency is being determined by who has raised the most millions, the majority of which comes from wealthy contributors who can afford a $1000 campaign check or more.
This is a dangerous road. We've been on it for some time. As Edwards supporters and Democratic primary voters suddenly worry, "Does this mean trouble?"--much like John McCain's backers and Republican primary voters reacted when his fundraising slipped--we witness, again, that campaign dollars get attention well before the voting begins.
This goes beyond the outcome in 2008. We need to know if the contenders for President will make public financing of campaigns a priority issue if elected. Because if they don't, it means we're relegated to an unending string of elections that favor wealthy campaign contributors and their lobbyists over the typical American voter.
