Trailhead: A campaign blog.

Debt Relief

Ever since the Clinton campaign went on life support earlier this week, there’s been speculation that Barack Obama could persuade Hillary to drop out by promising to pay off her campaign debt. The Huffington Post’s Tom Edsall wrote that “it is not uncommon for winning presidential campaigns to pick up some or all of a competitor's debts and obligations, although the size of Clinton's debt and her personal loans to her campaign are unprecedented - somewhere over and above $20 million.” Meanwhile, diarists at DailyKos started hyperventilating that their Obama donations would be given to subsidize Clinton’s ailing campaign. Is their fear justified?

No it’s not. Obama can’t just “pay back” Clinton’s debt. FEC rules limit contributions from one candidate committee to another at $2000, according to FEC spokesman Bob Biersack. So even if Obama wanted to cut Hillary a $10 million check, he couldn’t. Nor could he route his money through the DNC, since national party committees can only give $5000 to a candidate committee.

What Obama can do is fundraise for her. Over the past year, Obama has established a formidable online fundraising apparatus that has raked in more than $240 million since the campaign began. If he called for supporters to chip in for Clinton, or set up a joint fundraising committee, he could probably drum up some cash. How much is unclear. Obama/Clinton relations remain icy, and many Obama supporters might hesitate to cut $2300 checks for the candidate they see as overstaying her welcome in order to weaken Obama against McCain. Plus, if small-bore donors have limited funds, they’re more likely to give Obama cash for the general than to get the multi-millionaire Clinton back on her feet.

Anyway, short story, any money Obama “gives” to Clinton has yet to be raised. Donors who have contribute to his campaign between now and when Clinton drops out shouldn't worry about their dollars replenishing Clinton's coffers.

Also check out Jacob Leibenluft's Explainer, "Can a Campaign Go Bankrupt?" 

Money Grubbing

Slate’s Nathan Heller points out that both HillaryClinton.com and BarackObama.com now redirect visitors directly to their contributions pages. (Actually, it looks like BarackObama.com just reverted as I was prepping this post.)

Clinton’s minimum suggested contribution: $5

Obama’s minimum suggested contribution: $15

Best Fundraising Ploy of the Day goes to the sudden revelation that Clinton loaned herself $ 6.4 million in April and May. Clinton's two biggest fundraising surges were after her Pennsylvania victory and the announcement that she'd loaned herself $5 million. (Obama got quite a boost from both, as well.) Today's loan announcement, coming on the heels of her Indiana squeeker, gives her the best of both worlds.

But neither candidate has released post-Indiana fundraising numbers, which suggests that their victories didn’t yield quite the cash surge that Pennsylvania did.

Obama's Public Funds Dilemma

On the tip of bloggy tongues everywhere is the question of what will happen if McCain takes public funds for the general election. McCain says he will if Obama agrees to do the same. Would Obama follow suit, as he has suggested in the past?

McCain’s campaign has been mentioning Obama’s “pledge” to accept public funds, basically daring him not to keep his word. "If I were raising $35 million a month, I would think that through …” said McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis. “I think there is more a more likely chance he'd break his pledge than John [would].” 

Now Obama’s people appear to be downplaying the idea. Spokesman Bill Burton describes public funding as an “option,” but refuses to call it a “pledge.” But is it an option he would really turn down?

For Obama, this would be the ultimate test of practicality vs. idealism—and a dangerous one, too. The candidate made a big deal of petitioning the FEC last February for a “truce” that would allow the front-runners of both parties to give back money raised for the general election. The move earned him plenty of coverage, and helped bolster his image as someone committed to cleaning up Washington. Even if his “pledge” wasn’t explicit—if the words “I will accept public funds if my opponent does” never came out of his mouth—his alleged commitment to campaign finance reform is too much a part of his public character to reverse course suddenly.

For one thing, his idealistic fans might turn on him. The Obama luster is bound to get scuffed up at some point, but to have it happen over an obviously controllable issue like campaign finance—as opposed to ancient ties to goons like Tony Rezko—would be especially damning. Plus, McCain would have a field day. Every time the subject of ethics or promise-keeping came up, he would have the public funds cudgel at the ready. McCain’s conservative detractors often cite his campaign finance record as a strike against him. But if it gave him the moral high ground over Obama, they couldn’t help but cheer him on.

It makes sense that Obama’s campaign wouldn’t commit itself to public funding before securing the nomination. And, of course, it would be a major sacrifice to forgo such a huge monetary advantage. But they have to recognize the ammo it would provide—and already is providing—for McCain. It may still be just an “option.” But it’s an option Obama can’t afford not to take.

Who Cares About the Orange Bowl?

Months before caucus mania descended on the country, various story lines were floated by the political media to try and create a little drama. But now that the caucuses are upon us, it's worth a look back at the story fads that turned out to be useless.

• The early caucus: Not too long ago, Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida all competed in an arms race to be one of the first primaries in the nation. But now it's Jan. 3, and Iowa and New Hampshire are still voting first, albeit a few weeks earlier than usual. Big whoop. We should have trusted in some political form of game theory all along. Russell Crowe John Nash has New Hampshire's back.
• Organge Bowl: Pundits also decried a Jan. 3 caucus date because they thought Iowans wouldn't caucus if the Orange Bowl was on at the same time. Considering candidates' turnout models are inching higher and higher, that seems like hogwash. Plus, who wants to watch Virginia Tech and Kansas in Florida? (Besides Rudy Giuliani.)
• Fund raising: Unbeknownst to everybody (except Ron Paul supporters), the fourth fund-raising quarter ended at midnight on New Year's Eve. But the media barely cared. That's because the fund-raising story lines—while somewhat insightful—are created mainly so the media have something to write about in the dog days of the campaign. Now that there are real stories involving real votes, the media have turned their back on their former muse. Moreover, candidates have barely mentioned their fourth-quarter hauls, in fear that the media will care if their opponents subsequently one-up them.
• Giuliani vs. Romney: The Republican race used to be the Romniani show, yet both of the candidates are hobbling into the primaries. Romney and Giuliani used to bicker with each other over taxes, line-item vetoes, and immigration at the debates. But looking back on it, that was all a red herring. At this point, it's more likely that one of them will ask the other to be his VP. Now, Romney and Giuliani will only go head to head if both candidates can last through Florida and Feb. 5, a scenario that's only possible if Romney wins Iowa and Giuliani stays relevant.

Streisand Supports Obama, Edwards, Dodd

Barbra Streisand threw her vocal chords behind Hillary Clinton today, a not-so-surprising endorsement for the long-time Democratic activist. Streisand sang at Bill Clinton's inaugural gala and dedicated a song to 42 and Hill. Most interesting, though, is that Streisand donated $2,300 to not only Clinton, but also Barack Obama and John Edwards. (She also tossed a grand into Chris Dodd's coffer.)

Can you imagine if Oprah had donated to Hillary's campaign? Chuck Norris to Mitt Romney's? That Desperate Housewives guy to Bill Richardson's?

Meanwhile, does this mean Hillary Clinton's theme song might change from Celine Dion's "You and I" to Babs' "The Way We Were"? Probably not. Lyrics like "static pictures of the smiles we left behind; smiles we gave to one another of the way we were" would make her sound like she's running to reinstate the Clinton era--and the campaign is careful to "Stay Away" from that message. Zing!

Cash Infusion

With many of the big-name donors tapped out, campaigns have turned to the Internet to try and wrangle up new funding in the fourth quarter. And what's a fund-raising campaign without a few gimmicks? A roundup of some recent offerings:

John Edwards: If your mother's stuffing recipe isn't good enough, then try the Edwards family's. Taking a page out of Ann Romney's book, the Edwards campaign offers recipes as a reward for making a donation to the campaign. Dishes include: macaroni and cheese casserole and sweet potatoes with apples. Unclear if milquetoast is on the menu.

Mike Huckabee: Million-Dollar Homepage, meet Mike Huckabee. Huckabee launched his "Discover Huckabee" campaign on Nov. 5 to try to boost his fund-raising numbers this month. The more money Huckabee supporters give, the more tiles are revealed to show a photo collage of Huckabee's life. Along with learning more about Huck's life, supporters are treated to little tchotchkes like Huckabee buddy icons, blogger badges, and videos. No word on whether a digital Chuck Norris bobblehead doll will be the grand prize.

Barack Obama: Obama's campaign wants its supporters to put Obama back on the trail in Iowa rather than have to trot around meeting with funders all over the country. The fundraising drive is simple: Raise 850 grand in a week, and they'll cancel a terrestrial fund-raisier so Obama can spend the day in Iowa. For some context: Mike Huckabee wants to raise about $2 million in a month, while Obama wants $850,000 in a week.

Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney hopes you're willing to sell your junk for his benefit. The campaign has partnered with auctionPAL, an eBay knockoff, to offer "Mitt Market," which is basically a forum for Romney supporters to clear out their garages. auctionPAL sells your items for you on eBay and takes a cut of the earnings. Then you can elect to send the rest of the proceeds toward the Romney campaign, which will be happy to profit off of that eight-track player your spouse made you get rid of.

Have ideas of what kind of fundraising drives the gimmick-less candidates should be holding? Visit our suggestion box.

Attack of the Fake Personal E-mails

In a campaign full of cheesy new Internet memes—Facebook groups, “candid” campaign videos—the most annoying has to be the faux off-the-cuff e-mail chain. Exhibit A, just sent out today: 

From: Chris Dodd
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:29 PM
To: Christopher Beam
Subject: Fw: Re: Update?

Dear Friend—

I only have a few moments on my way back up to New Hampshire.

I asked my Campaign Manager for an update on what we accomplished online during the month of October, and I was so pleased with her response I wanted to make sure you saw the email chain.

[etc., etc.]

Scroll down and you find what you’re supposed to believe is an organic e-mail exchange between Sheryl Cohen, Dodd’s campaign manager, and Tim Tagaris, his Internet communications director. It’s meant to be a glimpse behind the scenes, a secret discussion Dodd decided to let us in on. Here’s the secret: The senator raised a lot of money in October, but he just needs a teensy bit more.

It’s not a bad way to reach supporters. It’s also utterly artless. For starters, it totally abuses the “Fw: Re:” prefix, usually reserved for funny e-mail threads your friends send you. The moment I clicked on it, I knew I’d been had. Plus, who would ever write this sentence in a personal e-mail: “We're gonna do everything we can to keep growing—something that is made easy as [Dodd] continues to lead on the issues important in this race.” Or maybe that's the way campaign people actually talk.

Dodd isn’t the first offender, or the worst. Back in September, Barack Obama sent out a mass e-mail with the subject, “Hey,” no doubt sending a million hearts aflutter. Of course, it was just another solicitation. Michelle Obama followed up with a “Re: Hey.” I was hoping she’d accidentally hit “reply all” on some missive meant only for Barack. Wrong again.

These kind of faux-personal notes will probably become standard for online fundraising. But what happens when it expands to texting—which is already happening—and IMs? Someday they'll pare their solicitation down to a single set of characters: "$?"