From: "Jason Auvenshine" <auvenj@mailcity.com>
On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 17:16:14 Mike Dugger wrote:
>The VERY serious hole in your example above is best illstrated as follows:
>
>Candidate A supports and accepts matching funds. He/she also supports
>drug prohibition, the death penalty for women who have abortions and,
>just for the hell of it, abolishing the Second Amendment. However,
>he/she is very good at publishing pamphlets which advocate reducing
>the size and scope of government, return to our Constitution etc.
>
>Candidate B supports the Libertarian platform to a tee and prefers
>to lead by example by refusing to get on the welfare line and accept
>matching funds.
>
>Which candidate will have the most resources available to reach
>potential primary voters and drum up support?
Two counterpoints: (1) We don't know which candidate will have more resources. Matching funds are just that, MATCHING. There is also a significant "entry hurdle". If the unprincipled person can't drum up the initial support necessary, they won't qualify at all, and even if they do qualify their funding will still be proportional to their support. FWIW As I understand it the only reason those here in Tucson who have qualified for matching funds were able to do so was because Peter Schmerl's side of the PARTY stepped in and drummed up the initial support. As others have pointed out, matching funds also come with their own restrictions and compliance requirements which drain resources and divert them from more productive uses. (2) You assume resources automatically produce votes and support. If that is the case, we should all just give up and find something else to do, because we will never have the same level of resources as the D's and R's do. I would like to think an underfunded but principled candidate has a good chance against a well-funded but hollow candidate in the "party of principle". If not, what does that say about us as individuals?
That said, I will concede that in certain circumstances a candidate who takes matching funds may have an advantage over one who does not. But isn't this better handled by an "education campaign" among party members than an outright ban on any candidate who takes matching funds?
--Jason Auvenshine
MailCity. Secure Email Anywhere, Anytime!
http://www.mailcity.com