Edwards to Accept Public Financing
EmailABC News’ Raelyn Johnson Reports: As the end of the third quarter fundraising period draws to a close, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., has announced that he intends to accept public financing for his bid for the Democratic nomination.
Edwards, who has severely lagged behind Clinton and Obama in fundraising, has not leaked his third quarter fundraising expectations, as he has done in previous quarters.
The campaign is saying this is not a red flag when it comes to his fundraising capabilities, but a step to curb the money in politics and make a statement about the influence of money.
In a statement released to the media, the Edwards campaign challenged Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., calling on her to join him now in accepting public financing and "ending the money game in Washington."
"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," said David Bonior, Edwards’ campaign manager.
"Senator Clinton said she believes public financing is the answer to ending the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington, Bonior said in the statement. "If she really believes that, she should join Senator Edwards and seek public financing, or she should explain to the American people why she does not mean what she says."
To be eligible for public financing, a candidate must prove to the Federal Election Commission their campaign has raised $100,000 by collecting $5,000 from any twenty states from contribution totaling no more than $250 each.
Money for the public financing system comes from a fund paid for by taxpayers who agree to set aside $3 from their income taxes for the presidential account. Taking money from the fund means the candidate must comply with spending limits.
Edwards could get up to $21 million in public money for the primary, but his overall spending on the primary elections could not exceed about $50 million. Candidates eligible for public financing receive matching payments from the federal government for the first $250 of each individual contribution they raise.
With files from the Associated Press.
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Accepting public financing is typically considered the death knell of a campaign, and has always been associated with campaigns that are on its last leg. Yet Edwards’ campaign continues to limp along, currently he’s so far behind Clinton or Obama in the polls that I can’t see how he can hope to win.
Instead of wasting the public funds any further why doesn’t he simply drop out and endorse either of the two frontrunners and throw his support behind them? That would probably be the best plan for Edwards at this point, try to salvage what’s left.
It was the dress comment. Americans remember what he said to Hillary, a gentleman never insults the dress of a lady. That silly comment is why Edwards remains at 14% in the polls, and why he can never hope to gain any more than that. He can’t win.
Posted by: robertjm | September 27, 2007, 6:43 pm 6:43 pm
Spent too much on the hair?
Posted by: Zabriskie1 | September 27, 2007, 7:20 pm 7:20 pm
Typically, it has been the death knell. Two things are clearer with this move. 1.) Edwards is nothing without Iowa. 2.) He expects Iowa to catapult him to victories in NH and Nevada. Basically, he can afford to take this because he only needs to spend money in two states (in his opinion) and hope that rides him to victory on Tsunami Tuesday.
Posted by: Patrick | September 27, 2007, 11:10 pm 11:10 pm
Hey robertjm, are you a pollster? I wouldn’t give you a plug nickel for any of those trumped up polls that were paid for by friends of Clinton and Obama.
Hey Patrick, Any candidate that wins Iowa will probably go all the way. What was it Obama’s wife said;” if we lose Iowa, its all over.”
I do agree that the media will put their negative spin on this. This kind of news is front page material for them. They have completely turned me off of politics with their biased campaign exposure of Obama and Clinton.
Posted by: cliff jones | September 28, 2007, 12:09 am 12:09 am
This is bizarre. In a lot of ways Edwards is full of it–he has $30 million in net value, he could easily spend $20 million of his own to catch up in fund raising. He knows the media will spin them against him, despite the fact that he makes a great case for why it is good (in terms of the message of Obama and Edwards).
So why is he doing it, why annouce it? I guess because he DOES believe in his message, but not enough to sacrifice his own fortune. Then again, no one else ever believed enough too either, to my knowledge (Bloomberg and other billionaires don’t count).
Posted by: Steve | September 30, 2007, 4:13 am 4:13 am