John Edwards Campaign Finance

Edwards obviously faced a number of campaign finance troubles during his run for the upcoming Presidential nomination. I think that his eventual withdrawal from the race, as far as money was concerned, can be narrowed down to three major factors.

First, there was no possible way that he would be able to keep pace with the record-setting numbers that the Clinton and Obama campaigns were raising. At the end of 2007, Edwards had raised only about half of what the Obama and Clinton campaigns had brought in, totaling almost $44 million, and from what it looks like, there is no end in sight. Although we won’t know the January numbers until February 20th, another blogger is reporting that the Obama campaign is raising nearly one million dollars a day right now—a number that Edwards wouldn’t ever have been able to compete with based on the information that I’ve read.

Secondly, in reviewing the source data of Edwards campaign finance, it’s clear that the most money from any single source came from the legal community (Edwards himself is a highly successful trial lawyer), nearly $9,000,000—almost ¼ of the total Edwards raised. In fact, the next highest category was individual democrats and liberals, totaling just over two million dollars—a significant difference. (www.opensecrets.org & Center for Responsive Politics). It seems to me that if Edwards was going to be successful in his bid for the White House, he would desperately need to diversify his fundraising to include a much broader range of money-sources, especially considering how much Clinton and Obama were raising in comparison.

The third major factor that likely contributed to Edwards decision to withdraw from the race was that his track record regarding campaign finance—as well as finance in general—was shaky at best. Had he somehow garnered the Democratic Nomination, it’s likely that the scrutiny of his past financial activities—which had already been brought into question—would have been even more visible to the American public. Unless you’re a close follower of politics, you might not have even noticed the discrepancies in Edwards campaign finance activities throughout this race, or his political career. There are discrepancies however, and they are difficult to refute. Edwards publicly disapproves of 527’s—special interest tax-exempt organizations used to influence elections but, by law, can’t be directly associated with the politician or cause. Regardless of his outspokenness on this issue, Edwards has a dangerously close association with a 527 named “Alliance for a New America,” which overseen by Edwards 2004 campaign manager, Nick Baldick (NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan). Although I couldn’t find any direct association between the 2008 Edwards campaign and Alliance for a New America, you don’t have to stretch too far to consider that they likely do talk to each other, regardless of the law. However, at the point that Edwards withdrew, that likely didn’t have enough “juice” for the media to dig deeper, something that they probably would have done had Edwards received the DNC nomination. Additionally, Edwards seems to waffle some on this issue throughout his career, sometimes accepting special interest money and sometimes not. He certainly hasn’t sent a clear and distinct message of disapproval of special interest money, regardless of his most recent public statements to the contrary.

There is a terrific article published by Nathaniel Bach of The Huffington Post titled John Edwards Money Problems that really begins to dig deeper into Edwards and his money—or perhaps more appropriately—his “money problems.” In his article, Bach reveals quite a bit about Edward’s tainted history with finance, both political and personal, as well as highlighting the former Senator’s mixed messages about campaign finance reform. However, regardless of Edward’s unclear position on these issues, Bach makes a very strong argument on how to deal with this issue best by writing:

Frankly, I don't much care whether Edwards (or any of the other Democratic candidates) "accepts" soft money. Outside groups will continue to spend throughout the presidential race, and for a candidate continually to condemn spending beneficial to their campaign is going to begin to sound disingenuous. The simple fact is that 527s and soft money are not going away before next November, and since Republicans will have every opportunity to exploit the 527 loophole, why shouldn't the Dems, too? And while there may be a few political points to be scored with independent voters from openly lamenting the role of money in presidential politics, the issue doesn't even poll when Americans are asked about the most pressing issues facing the country.

You can talk all you want about taking a stand against the influence of money in politics, but there's a time and a place. That time is not during the primaries, and not during the general election, but after a Democrat takes the oath of office. And that place is not on the campaign trail in Iowa, but behind the desk in the Oval Office with your Sterling silver bill-signing pen in hand. Until then, however, let's not lose sight of the immediate goal: a Democratic president. And for that to happen, I'll grant our candidates a temporary moral reprieve on the money issue.

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-bach/john-edwards-money-probl_b_78588.html)

--Mark Miller