We have in the US a partial system of public finance of presidential campaigns (remember those little check-off boxes on your 1040?). If you agree to participate in the public campaign finance system you get federal funds to match the hard money you raise as a candidate. The downside is that you also agree spending limits on the campaign.
For the purposes of the federal campaign finance program there are actually two campaigns: the campaign for the party nomination, and the campaign for president. The dividing line is the political convention, as that's were a candidate is officially made their party's standard bearer.
Both Bush and Kerry (and Dean) opted out of the public campaign finance system for the primaries. This meant they could raise and spend unlimited amounts of hard money (although no more than $2000 per donor). Since Kerry is using the public campaign finance system for his presidential candidacy, now that the convention is over he is limited in his campaign spending (by his own choice). I believe Bush will also be using the public campaign finance system for his presidential run, but until the Republican convention he's still in the primaries technically and has no spending limits.
So your DNC droid did not accurately report the situation (although I suspect they don't understand the difference). Kerry can still raise money, he just has spending caps. Bush doesn't have spending caps yet because he's not the Republican candidate for president yet.
Of course the DNC under McCain-Feingold can't raise and spend unlimited amounts of soft-money anymore either, that's illegal. But soft money doesn't go away, it just finds new, less accountable channels: 527s. 527s are basically organizations that raise money for political advocacy. They are less accountable than channels for soft money because their reporting requirements aren't as stringent as those for political parties. They are supposed to be independent of the parties and the candidates (and some are), but there's a lot of indication that many aren't (like Media Fund ads being placed advocating a Kerry policy proposal before that policy proposal is announced or leaked to the media).
My guess is the DNC droid you were talking to would have steered your dollars towards a 527.
Interestingly, my understanding is that the Republicans are leading strongly in hard money (donations of less than $2000 from individuals to the candidate) but Democrats are leading even more strongly in soft 527 money (frequently in large chunks from wealthy individuals). This roughly means that Kerry is a lot of his financial support from the wealthy and special interest groups, and Bush is getting most of his financial support from individuals.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A brief exposition on the state of campaign finance
Date: 2004-08-06 08:55 pm (UTC)We have in the US a partial system of public finance of presidential campaigns (remember those little check-off boxes on your 1040?). If you agree to participate in the public campaign finance system you get federal funds to match the hard money you raise as a candidate. The downside is that you also agree spending limits on the campaign.
For the purposes of the federal campaign finance program there are actually two campaigns: the campaign for the party nomination, and the campaign for president. The dividing line is the political convention, as that's were a candidate is officially made their party's standard bearer.
Both Bush and Kerry (and Dean) opted out of the public campaign finance system for the primaries. This meant they could raise and spend unlimited amounts of hard money (although no more than $2000 per donor). Since Kerry is using the public campaign finance system for his presidential candidacy, now that the convention is over he is limited in his campaign spending (by his own choice). I believe Bush will also be using the public campaign finance system for his presidential run, but until the Republican convention he's still in the primaries technically and has no spending limits.
So your DNC droid did not accurately report the situation (although I suspect they don't understand the difference). Kerry can still raise money, he just has spending caps. Bush doesn't have spending caps yet because he's not the Republican candidate for president yet.
Of course the DNC under McCain-Feingold can't raise and spend unlimited amounts of soft-money anymore either, that's illegal. But soft money doesn't go away, it just finds new, less accountable channels: 527s. 527s are basically organizations that raise money for political advocacy. They are less accountable than channels for soft money because their reporting requirements aren't as stringent as those for political parties. They are supposed to be independent of the parties and the candidates (and some are), but there's a lot of indication that many aren't (like Media Fund ads being placed advocating a Kerry policy proposal before that policy proposal is announced or leaked to the media).
My guess is the DNC droid you were talking to would have steered your dollars towards a 527.
Interestingly, my understanding is that the Republicans are leading strongly in hard money (donations of less than $2000 from individuals to the candidate) but Democrats are leading even more strongly in soft 527 money (frequently in large chunks from wealthy individuals). This roughly means that Kerry is a lot of his financial support from the wealthy and special interest groups, and Bush is getting most of his financial support from individuals.