A Rovian talking point emerges: Edwards only getting 'matching funds'

[StefanX]

Be on the lookout for people who are now attacking Edwards for NOT accepting corporate donations. This is a Rovian framing tactic -- attacking someone precisely because of their STRENGTH.

The fact that Edwards doesn't take corporate money is one of his STRONGEST points. It means that he'll do what WE say, not what the corrupt and criminal corporate lobbyists say. I think we've all learned the hard way over the years what happens when you vote a politician into office and he stops listening to you and starts listening to his corporate cronies instead.

Poor Edwards, running neck-and-neck in the primaries on one-sixth of the money Hillary or Obama have. How would you decribe this situation? I'd say: "Edwards getting six times the bang for his buck -- has one-sixth the money of the two media darlings but is still a front runner."

How would a Rovian frame this? They'd raise their "concerns" that Edwards being limited to spending "only" 50 million dollars between now and August with his "matching funds" won't be able to get his message out.

Looks to me like he's getting his message out pretty good to the people that matter -- to the voters.

[FrenchieCat]

1. It's not "rovian".....its a fact.....which I have written about several times

PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY MATCHING FUNDS information for DUMMIES
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3832347

EDWARDS could have "risked" some of his 54+ Millions rather than take Matching Funds. Why didn't he?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3824893

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Why didn't he?

It's called 'principles'.

Something Dems used to have.

[jenmito]

9. Wrong. It's called "necessity" since he first chose NOT to accept matching funds.

Need a link? He chose to forego matching funds in Feb. '07.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Nope......

it wasn't principals.

John Edwards, who with high hopes in February of 2007 talked about why he was opting out of public financing.
Edwards said in an interview that he expects major candidates in both parties to raise unlimited private dollars rather than participate in the public system. He said he needs to do the same "to have the funds to be competitive."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-05-edwards-money_x.htm



PUBLIC FINANCING = "getting the living shit kicked out of him all summer long”- Joe TRIPPI
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3919949


Lets talk a bit more about Edwards' money problem
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3955656

[jenmito]

13. Thanks for posting the factual links. I can't believe his supporters believe he "chose"

to "stand on principle" ONLY after he failed to raise as much money as the others. I submitted a question to MSNBC for Edwards about matching funds. I hope they ask him to explain why he first rejected them if he is so against what he was originally for.

[Mythsaje]

6. Oh, here we go...

You'd prefer he open himself to accusations that he's trying to "buy" the Presidency?

[FrenchieCat]

Yeah....like that would have happened?

:eyes:

[Mythsaje]

30. Well, considering his detractors are willing to go to just about any length...

Yeah.

[Andy823]

2. Excellent point!

We all know that corporate america does "NOT" want Edwards in office, and using the "matching funds" arguement seems to work for them, since many here, and on other sites, have taken up the same tactic to portray Edwards as not being able to defend himself if he were the nominee because "he doesn't have enough money!"

Corporate america has dumped millions into the funds of the "other two" so they can make this a race where it's the "money" that counts. People should reall think about this! :think:

[DangerDave921]

3. Clarify

You say Edwards is running neck and neck in the primaries. He came in a distant 2nd in Iowa, and came in a dismal 3rd in New Hampshire (was it 17%?). How can this be characterized as running neck and neck? And current polls in South Carolina show him at 15-17%. However you slice it, Edwards is firmly in 3rd place in this race. He is not running neck and neck.

But I agree his decision not to take corporate funds is awesome.

[StefanX]

14. I'm saying that when he came in 2nd, he still got no mention in the media

Do you think that's normal? A guy comes in 2nd in Iowa and never gets mentioned in the media?



I really think this is a three-way race, and I think it's a lot closer than the media is reporting it.

[DangerDave921]

18. Graph

I see your point, but I just had to point out that he is not running neck and neck.

Where did you get that graph? I don't understand it. What are "multi-candidate headlines"? And what does the percentage refer to?

Thanks!

[LynzM]

24. More discussion of that here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2642431

Basically, the point is that he came in a surprise second, on 1/6th the funds (give or take) and yet the media mentioned him hardly at all. When talking about two-candidate headlines (i.e., Clinton and Obama compete yada yada), Edwards got very, very little mention. Take a look at the above link for more info/graphs.

[tritsofme]

4. Well if he wins the nomination he better yell his message from the highest moutain top.

Because his campaign will be broke and unable to afford ad-time.

[AlertLurker]

7. Except that he IS taking corporate money...

psst...

http://www.opensecrets.org

[Viva_La_Revolution]

16. I guess that would make my donation corporate too

since I donate through ActBlue. :eyes:

[liberalla]

34. Donations thru ActBlue do not get matching funds!

You should donate through his website and then your $$ is matched and goes twice as far!

https://www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/form/

[Viva_La_Revolution]

36. It was actually over a year ago that I did...

No $ lately. :cry:

If I come up with some, I'll do what you said. :)

[liberalla]

37. I hope your situation improves

I'm unemployed and need to find a job soon, so Good Luck to both of us! :hi:

[rinsd]

8. Except Edwards is accepting corporate donations.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sector_img.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

Top 20 contributors

ActBlue $1,965,274
Fortress Investment Group $187,850
Stearns, Weaver et al $131,000
Lerach, Coughlin et al $93,950
Goldman Sachs $77,100
Whitten, Nelson et al $66,250
Girardi & Keese $64,400
Beasley, Allen et al $61,850
Watts Law Firm $61,000
Morgan & Morgan $60,050
Skadden, Arps et al $54,950
Deutsche Bank AG $54,750
Citigroup Inc $49,200
Sidley Austin LLP $43,950
Brent Coon & Assoc $42,700
Kramer, Dillof et al $36,400
Motley Rice LLC $36,200
Baron & Budd $35,590
Brayton Purcell $35,100
Weitz & Luxenberg $34,600

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

"I'd say: "Edwards getting six times the bang for his buck -- has one-sixth the money of the two media darlings but is still a front runner."

Except he isn't running neck and neck with Obama & Hillary with the exception of Nevada which doesn't seem to matter much.

[tritsofme]

10. That's different!

...because Edwards is doing it...

[redqueen]

12. Why do you say NV does not seem to matter much?

:shrug:

[tritsofme]

15. Not many delegates in play, and it doesn't have the traditional role

of being a make or break state.

It seems like more of a momentum builder going into SC and Tsunami Tuesday than anything.

[redqueen]

21. That's what I was thinking... momentum...

and also something to silence those who keep saying "he's gotta win something".

I think how much it matters depends on one's perspective.

[rinsd]

20. In terms of media attention, committment of candidates etc.

NV doesn't seem to get the treatment the other 1st 4 do/have.

With the GOP holding their SC primary the same day as the Dem NV caucus it will receive even less attention.

[karynnj]

19. i think you are misinterpreting what you see

When you contribute, there's info you put in including employer. These charts aggregate by employer. (Actblue is different.)

[rinsd]

26. Actblue is indeed different but I did not want to leave them off the list.

The purpose of the list is to show possible bundling.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

28. 'possible' being the operative word. nt

[rinsd]

31. So you think his largesse from Fortress is because of the impression he made?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

32. I think I'm not going to accuse anyone of anything without facts to back it up.

:shrug:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

22. How to read this chart...

Contributions where the employer is listed, but the Center wasn't able to categorize it. Though we try, we can't always identify the economic interest of every employer listed by donors.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/coded.asp

So, according to you, every person who works for any company and donates to a campaign is "a corporate donor". Well good. I work for a fundie, so my donations can be said to come from him. Wait till I tell him that at work tomorrow!

[rinsd]

25. Ever hear of bundling? That's the point of this list in the 1st place.

I guess you could convince yourself that the people at the Fortress Hedge Fund got to know Edwards during his $500,000 part time consulting job about an industry he had zero experience in that they rushed to contribute to his campaign.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

27. yes, but that's not what this chart says...

You would need the daily totals of donations to prove bundling (since bundled contributions are usually delivered to the campaign on the same day) This chart just lists donors by employer. There is no way to tell from this chart if they were bundled or not.

[rinsd]

29. One has to use the FEC website for that.

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml

For Fortress it appears most contributions came in the last 2 weeks before the end of the 1st Q of 2007

For Stearns Weaver it looks like 9/18/2007 was a big day.

John Edwards can talk about refusing PAC money all he wants but the term corporate money is much broader. While it may work with his more populist image, the record does not support it.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

33. Thanks for that link!

I'm going through Hillary's donations now... We'll see how that compares...

[OneGrassRoot]

23. He hasn't accepted corporate funds since last summer. Not since he made the statement ...

that he wouldn't.

There are various theories as to why - including what's being discussed here, but there are also theories that Elizabeth's health issue which re-emerged around that time led to him clarifying his stance even more and "going for" the hardcore populist stance...standing on principle - but the fact is that he hasn't accepted "lobby" donations since this past summer.

[Adelante]

17. The truth is Rovian?

Get a grip.

[mnhtnbb]

35. That's a contradiction in terms.