WASHINGTON — Last year, when Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe was pushing through the presidential primary calendar changes that he hoped would accelerate the choice of the 2004 Democratic nominee, he was asked how many of his party’s potential contenders he thought could meet the stiff financial challenge of the front-loaded contest.
McAuliffe, to my surprise, said there was enough Democratic money around for "five or six — maybe more" of the contenders to mount full-scale campaigns.
Those who accept partial public financing of their campaigns — and so far, all of the nine declared candidates indicate they will do that — can spend a maximum of about $44 million apiece on the race. If McAuliffe is right, it means that more than $100 million in limited contributions will have to come from individual Democratic donors to trigger the federal matching funds for small donations.
Because of the high-speed schedule of primaries and caucuses that McAuliffe has encouraged in order to identify the challenger to President Bush by the first or second Tuesday in March, virtually all this dough will have to be in hand this year.
That is why so much of the attention of the political press corps is focused on the fund-raising reports for the second quarter, ending June 30, that will be made public by July 15.
At a time when hardly any of the people who will vote in next winter’s caucuses and primaries have spent even 30 seconds mulling their choice, the ridiculously few Democrats who actually give money to the candidates are being importuned to make their picks now. Never again will someone capable of writing a $2,000 check have so much influence.
Until the votes are cast in Iowa and New Hampshire next January, the fund-raising reports represent the surest measure of how well the rivals for the nomination are doing.
But how good a measure is that? Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina raised more money than anyone else in the first three months of the year, thanks in large part to support from his fellow trial lawyers. But Edwards — even after that feat — still registers in the single digits in early polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, ranking fourth or fifth in the field.
By contrast, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the 2000 vice presidential candidate, leads in most of the national polls, despite a notably slow start on his fund-raising.
It is clear from the turnouts he has been drawing and the cheers his fiery speeches elicit that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has captured the hearts of many liberal Democratic activists. Whether that will translate into financial support is another question.
Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri has led in every poll of the Iowa caucuses and has attracted significant support in both New Hampshire and South Carolina, but his opponents whisper that he is having a hard time on the financial front, in part because major unions, his traditional allies, are reluctant to place their bets on him as yet.
Of all the contenders, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts seems to have the best combination of financial and political backing — trailing Edwards narrowly in first-quarter fund-raising while running well ahead of him in the early polls in New Hampshire, Iowa and other states.
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida got into the race well after the others did. His home state is a great source of Democratic campaign money, but Lieberman in particular has been competing for Florida fund-raisers’ support, and Graham’s appeal to his past financial backers as a presidential hopeful remains untested.
The other three announced Democrats — the Rev. Al Sharpton, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois — readily acknowledge that they will lag far behind the others in campaign cash. Even by McAuliffe’s generous estimate, there is a limit on how many Democrats can afford to run.
But that does not seem to discourage others from possibly joining the race. Last week. Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and retired Gen. Wesley Clark both talked more seriously about increasing the cast of contenders to a football-sized 11.
They recognize — as do those who have been out there campaigning and fund-raising — that no one has put a grip on this nomination or even established himself as the one to beat.
Despite McAuliffe’s hope for an early resolution, this race is as wide open as any the Democrats have seen since 1976.
David Broder can be reached at The Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071-9200.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
