<x-flowed>
If increasing small donor fundraising pays for itself (which it better since it is fundraising) then increasing small donor fundraising by the Dems should not have put them at a disadvantage.  I believe Ed's point is that unilaterally rejecting soft-money would put them at a disadvantage, which is of course true.  My point is that increasing small donor efforts doesn't require a ban on soft money (e.g. DSCC and DCCC could have focused on small donors and let DNC handle soft money).  Of course, banning soft money and doubling contributions limits placed Dems at a disadvantage, too, albeit not so large a disa.dvantage as unilaterally rejecting soft money.

I am struck by Tom's phrasing of the objectives of BCRA ("The objective was to take politicians out of the business of extorting unlimited contributions from corporations,unions, and wealthy invidividuals").  I think this is a significant wording - if the goal was to protect corporations, unions and the wealthy from extortion, I would evaluate the law much differently than if the goal were to limit the influence of these actors on policy. Certainly the rhetoric focused on limiting their influence, not protecting them.

Mike

Ed Still wrote:

Even if a majority of, say, Congressional Democrats wanted to change the party's fundraising practices, they might be loathe to do so if they thought it would place them at a competitive disadvantage to the Republicans.  Thus they pass a law to mandate the change.

Similarly, Big Company might say that it supports a change in pollution laws but will not undertake the change voluntarily because the change will raise its costs.  It wants everyone to suffer the same cost changes as it faces so that it does not lose profits.

Ed Still

At 10:24 AM 5/21/2004, Michael Bailey wrote:

My point is that the parties could have made this change themselves.  At least, the overwhelming majorities in the Democratic caucus that supported BCRA could have mandated the DSCC and DCCC to turn to small donors w/o a law.

The idea that party members in Congress had to pass a law to change their own party committees' behavior strikes me as odd.

Trevor Potter wrote:

I believe the answer to Michael Bailey's question about why the
Democrats did not emphasize small donor fundraising from individuals
prior to BCRA is that the incentives ran the other way-it was much easier
to raise money from a (relative) handful of known major doners-wealthy
individuals, large corporations with business interests regulated by the
federal government, and unions-in $100,000 and up contributions. Only
when those sources were removed was the Democratic Party forced to turn
to the harder task of building a small donor base.