Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Seriously, a question for the political aware........

Mar 4, 2004 9:47AM PST

In that the Democratic Party will not, in fact, have a Candidate until their convention, do election laws allow the DNC to financially/directly support Kerry as the candidate until then ?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
I think ...
Mar 4, 2004 9:48PM PST

... regardless of the answer to that question, it would apply to Bush as well. Although unopposed, he is not the official candidate either. The conventions do have some significance in the financing of campaigns but I'm not sure the nitty gritty details. I do know that Kerry using campaign funds to pay himself back for that 6 million loan does have a deadline of convention time.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:I think ...
Mar 4, 2004 10:15PM PST

I agree the same rules would apply. I was just wondering in that the stories are that Bush is flush with $$$'s and that Kerry is looking hard. I heard a story that Bush also 'has to' spend sn amount of those funds prior to the convention, or there is some sort of problem. What a way to run a railroad ! Keeps an entire room full of experts busy just keeping up with the rules.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:I think ...
Mar 4, 2004 10:19PM PST

Yeah, those rules are sure confusing Del! Last I heard, even the DNC coffers don't come close to Bush's "personal warchest", and facing such a deficit, I doubt they would want to spend what they have this early on. Yep, Kerry is hurting for money. But Moveon.org and other organizations like that will at least help on that count.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
The DNC cannot directly fund Sen. Kerry's campaign until he's the official nominee,...
Mar 5, 2004 2:06AM PST

...which won't occur until the convention. Similarly, the RNC cannot fund the Bush reelection campaign untin after the Republican National Convention.

As Evie points out, the difference in funds available at this time (Bush=$150 million, Kerry=maybe $5 million) is a severe disadvantage, but the MoveOns of the world will, of course, try to bridge the gap.

A similar thing happened in 1996; after a contentious primary campaign, Sen. Bob Dole was almost broke, while the Clinton reelection campaign had many millions available, and basically devastated any hopes Dole had before the conventions with its advertising campaign. We will, of course, leave aside that between them, the DNC and the Clinton-Gore 1996 reelection committee had to return some $50 million in illegal contributions, most of those associated with donations by people associated with the People's Republic of China, in the six months following the '96 vote...

- Collapse -
Re:question for the political aware -- Not to worry...
Mar 5, 2004 5:11AM PST

Hi, Del.

George Soros, Emily's List, Moveon.org, and numerous other liberal groups are under no such constraints. It's interesting that Republicans are starting to b!tch and moan about such things, when Halliburton, Clear Channel, and all the advertisers on the "Sean Hannity show" are clearly making what ought to be considered illegal corporate contributions in the form of advertising. And then there are the HHS-sponsored ads in favor of the revised Medicare, which are clearly designed to refute Democratic (and increasingly old folks') criticisms of the "reform" plan that was unfortunately passed late last year.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
the unfortunate reform plan that AARP supported.
Mar 5, 2004 5:26AM PST

Not exactly a Republican organization from what I can tell. What's amazing to me is that you advocate suppressing Sean Hannity's political speech (which is one of the main things the Constitution protects) while applauding and defending the speech of Howard Stern (which the Constitution's framers would have condemned).