Kerry: The Six-Million Dollar Advantage

[cajun4clark]

People should be extremely disturbed that John Kerry used his wealth to save his failing candidacy. His $6 million put professionals on the ground in Iowa, crushing the other candidates. From there it's been a cakewalk for him. It's clear that John Kerry will do anything to get elected. I'd love to read what he's said in the past about campaign finance reform--can't be much. We should be calling Kerry on this--the wealthy shouldn't have more of a voice than the rest of us.

[bigtree]

1. His money is where his mouth is

[ShaneGR]

19. Yup, and he didn't waste his supporters money either

Unlike some other candidates.

[Raya]

32. Thankfully

[fabius]

2. Dean and Clark had plenty of money.

If there's one good thing to be seen out of the Dean campaign so far it is that (1) Democrats really can raise some major money from grassroots supporters, and (2) Money doesn't always win.

I think on balance, that's a positive thing.

[cajun4clark]

8. The money raised by Dean and Clark

came from supporters, not from either candidate's personal wealth. Huge difference.

[killbotfactory]

3. The elite will show us the way to the promised land

Don't fight it... Because you can't.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eileen_d]

5. Consider who Kerry may be running against in November

I have mixed feelings about this, honestly, but I'm not "extremely disturbed."

[jpgray]

6. But the money didn't make the difference.

If it did, Iowa would have gone Dean.

[TheDonkey]

7. Dean had $40 million

JK needed the boost to get his message out and the people latched on.

[cajun4clark]

9. Dean had $40 million because he had supporters

JK needed money because...

[JI7]

10. many supporters don't give money

and their support of the candidate is no less just because they haven't given money to the candidate.

[cajun4clark]

11. nice try

[JI7]

12. one shouldn't have to give money

to show they support someone.

[cajun4clark]

14. You're right about that.

But that's not really the point of my post. A candidate who can use his wealth to save his failing candidacy has an unfair advantage.

[JI7]

16. many things are unfair

the digital divide is unfair. which is why i opposed the internet voting in michigan. this is far more unfair as it applies to a basic right people in america should have which is as fair and equal a voting system as possible. and i don't believe kerry spent the most money in iowa of all the candidates anyways. much bigger factors than money in that race. the same goes for new hampshire. money matters more in later states where candidates have less chance of personal contact with voters and to engage in discussion debate etc.

[Raya]

30. Any he respected his supporters by spending it so carefully, right?

[ModerateMiddle]

13. Then what accounted for Edwards

great result in Iowa? He didn't have all that money.

[cajun4clark]

15. Apparently Edwards didn't need it.

[TheDonkey]

20. Can you prove Kerry needed the $6M?

to win Iowa?

Ok then.

[KC21304]

17. Are you trying to bring logic to this discussion ? Get with the program.

Kerry won only because he had more money. Except he didn't. And Dean couldn't win because he didn't have enough money. Except he did. And Edwards ...... well you get the idea.

[cajun4clark]

24. The issue is how campaigns should/should not be financed

Should the wealthy have such an advantage? It's a simple question.

[JI7]

27. only way to make it public funds

the fact is those who give money to candidates tend to be better off in many ways from another group of americans who don't even vote, don't have access to a computer, internet etc. so even candidates who get money from the people have an advantage .

[cajun4clark]

29. I totally agree with public funds.

[Raya]

18. I am Extremely Disturbed that DEAN does NOT use his $3 mill To Save His

candidacy.

[NNN0LHI]

21. Yea. Lets find some indigent fellow to run against Chimpys $100 million

You guys kill me. No shit. A laugh a minute around here.

Don

[MurikanDemocrat]

22. It was a loan and there's nothing illegal about it

You are upset about it because it helped him to win? So, if it didn't help him win, then you wouldn't have cared. Sheesh!

[ozone_man]

33. A loan is not the point, it was $6M

that did not come from his supporter base. He bought the primaries with his own money. And the media assassination of Dean did the rest of the job.

[shivaji]

23. The fatal error of Clark & his supporters

was that they attacked Dean pre-Iowa instead of concentrating
on the DLC favorite, Mr JFK. Complete miscalculation, and is
the main reason Kerry will be nominated in a cakewalk.

[cajun4clark]

25. Apparently it didn't matter what we did to Kerry

because he had $6 million on hand just in case.

[JI7]

28. dean spent more than kerry

the fact remains that dean spent more money than kerry. and if it's self financing you have an issue with then you should have just started a thread saying you oppose it rather than claiming the 6 million helped kerry in iowa. because kerry didn't spent all that money in iowa and dean in fact spent more.

[Raya]

26. Kerry was OUTSPENT 2 to 1 in Iowa by Dean and got 1/5th the Media

Kerry was also hugely outspent by both Dean and Clark in NH.

[WiseMen]

31. I think Clark out-spent Kerry in every contested State. What's your prob.