The Boston Globe
Some Democrats decry Kerry's unspent $16m
In close races, they say, funds would've helped

By Rick Klein and Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | November 19, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The Democrat who was defeated in one of the closest Senate races in the country joined some other party leaders yesterday in questioning why Senator John F. Kerry kept $16 million in a campaign account rather than donate it to Democrats who desperately needed funding down the stretch.

Kerry aides said the money was set aside to cover late-arriving bills and any legal challenges to the presidential outcome. But other Democrats said the money, which was raised during Kerry's primary-election campaign and could not be spent on his own general-election campaign due to federal limits, should have been given to other candidates to spend.

Daniel Mongiardo, who lost a US Senate race in Kentucky by slightly more than 1 percentage point, said he would have loved to combat negative advertising by his opponent, Senator Jim Bunning. Mongiardo was unable to afford either mailings or a door-to-door effort to get out the vote, he said.

''We lost in the west, where they were running an ad against me that tied me to Kerry and accused me of being liberal, and that was far from the truth," said Mongiardo, who estimated that he was outspent 4-1 by Bunning. ''But we didn't have the resources to combat their message. We definitely outworked the guy. We just were underfunded."

Gordon Fischer, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, said Kerry should not have withheld so much money from an election season in which so many Democrats were locked in close races.

''There's going to be a lot of soul-searching about this loss, and this needs to be added to the mix of what went wrong," said Fischer, who saw Kerry lose in Iowa by 10,000 votes. ''Several million dollars left over -- it seems like that shouldn't happen. It should be much closer to zero."

The Kerry campaign provided details of its primary surplus yesterday, but aides declined to speak publicly about it.

Late Wednesday, campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter told the Globe, ''John Kerry raised more money than any Democratic nominee in history, and he gave more money to Democratic candidates across the country than any other nominee in history."

The surplus money is in the account set up by Kerry for the Democratic primaries. Under federal regulations, Kerry could not spend the money after July 29 -- the day he accepted the Democratic nomination -- because he agreed to a spending cap in exchange for federal financing.

Aides said much of the extra money came via Internet donations during the convention, meaning it was too late for Kerry's own campaign. But the rules allowed Kerry to give the money to other candidates or to the party. He also is allowed to use it to pay for costs associated with his Senate career, or in a future run for president.

One top Kerry aide said that after all bills are paid, the primary account is likely to be down to about $14 million. Approximately $4 million will be used to defend against allegations that the Kerry campaign illegally coordinated with independent groups.

That would leave a $10 million surplus in the account, and Kerry is considering distributing much of it to Democratic candidates in 2005 and 2006, the aide said. And Kerry will use some of the money for his own campaign activities.

Shortly before he accepted the Democratic nomination, Kerry used his primary funds to send $3 million to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, $3 million to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and $2 million to state parties that had competitive gubernatorial races. After the convention, he shunted a record $32.5 million to the Democratic National Committee, including $9 million earmarked for state parties in battleground states.

''The donation more than fulfilled the campaign's commitment to the general election plan," said Jano Cabrera, the DNC's communications director.

The Kerry aide said that after those large donations were made, campaign officials decided to hang on to the balance of the money to help fund potential legal challenges.

Chris Lehane, a former aide to vice president Al Gore who worked for Kerry early in the primary season, agreed that the money could have been useful in other races, but said the Kerry campaign's rationale for saving it made sense. In 2000, Gore aides had to quickly raise millions of dollars after the election to pay for the legal battle in Florida.

''The Gore campaign was hamstrung by the fact that we had to raise the money after we had spent it," Lehane said. ''It's certainly conceivable that the campaign was looking at the need for significant resources for a recount, or shenanigans post-Nov. 2."

But Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who managed Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said she was ''totally shocked" to learn that so much money was left over. Aside from Kerry's defeat, Democrats lost two seats in the House and four in the Senate this year.

''I've never heard of having that amount of money left over," she said. ''This is not about John Kerry. This is about how do you deploy resources. We kept saying, 'This is the greatest, most important election in our lifetime.' Yet we have money left over? I don't know what else to say."

The Democrat leadership better wake up and smell the coffee! If they don't join us in fighting this election fraud issue, they may lose alot of support! John Kerry was an awesome candidate and if they stop and think about it - he has more loyalty in more massive numbers than any Democrat candidate has EVER had. If things continue the way they have been I say we start a Progressive Party and take John Kerry along with us!

They watched the 2000 court battles right along with us - they should have realized what we were up against and WANTED to be sure that we had enough money to fight whatever battles we needed to if things occurred making it necessary!

Any candidate that tries to use the John Kerry campaign as a scapegoat certainly deserves to be spoken to by the masses! Had the joined the campaign and worked a bit more arm in arm with it - they might have won as well! I don't think there is a John Kerry supporter around that doesn't suspect that we did WIN THIS ELECTION and that means WE ARE THE MAJORITY!

Maybe the democrat leadership should listen to the majority!

Sadly, these are the "squeaky wheels" hunkered under the umbrella but not helping hold it up.

I am an Independent, so this is just my .02 worth.

I've always thought the Democratic party has missed the chance to "birth" a coalition under the Democrat label - in other words, create 3rd/4th/5th, etc parties that focus on the specific "special interest" - Democratic LABOR Party, Democratic SOCIAL Party, Democratic ECOLOGY Party....In that way each would focus their good energies to the specific passion WHILE THEN SUPPORTING THE MAIN PARTY as a whole when general elections become relavent.

Just one of those "progressive"-type thoughts, ya know....makes sense.

Great idea except problem is we need to move away from special interest groups having the biggest voice. The majority should have the voice, not the ones who can yell loudest.....but then the majority yelling together......ooooooh now that could be VERY LOUD!