Running cheap

ATLANTA -- Barack Obama's announcement that he would turn down public financing and John McCain's decision to accept it illustrate the importance of money to candidates, even those on the state level.

Obama won't participate in the federal campaign funding program because he doesn't want to be hamstrung by the spending limits it imposes, despite his comments earlier of philosophical support for the program. McCain, who's party fundamentally opposes the program, has decided to accept it because doing so maximizes the money available to him. If their fundraising potential were reversed, they might have reached different decisions.

By the same token on the state level, even candidates who argue that government should be more frugal or who decry the influence of big political contributors can't escape the challenge of how to mount a viable campaign with little money.

How else do you reach voters who don't read newspapers or watch the news other than spending on ads and mailers to get in front of them?

There's a good reason for the longevity of the saying "money is the mother's milk of politics." It isn't just corrupt politicians who crave money. Those with no interest in lining their own pockets eventually realize its necessity in trying to sway voters.

In Georgia's U.S. Senate race, Democrats Josh Lanier and Dale Cardwell have sworn off contributions from political-action committees. But Jim Martin launched his campaign for that race with some sizable PAC gifts and instantly became dubbed the front-runner by many pundits as a result.

Cardwell says his years as a reporter at Atlanta's dominant TV station is so valuable in building name identification and credibility that it equates to $6 million that another candidate would have to raise.

"I'm banking on my name ID carrying the day," he said.

He's gambling that TV exposure will free him from the need to kowtow to special-interest groups -- even those he's sympathetic toward.

"When I meet with those groups, I say to them, ԉ can tell you right now you have me by the heart, but you cannot have me by the neck,'" Cardwell says.

Who knows if he'll succeed, but he's not the only candidate longing to be freed of the chore of begging for money.

Doug Everett is one. He was a legislator for years in a district where his reputation lessened the need for major fund raising. Then he ran as a Republican for the Public Service Commission, raising a kitty for a statewide race of $35,000, about what a rural legislator might raise.

Now he's up for re-election with a goal to raise $50,000 and a resignation that most will come from the employees of the utilities the commission regulates. He would rather be independent but knows few others care enough about the PSC to contribute.

"The only thing you can do is take money where you can get it that's legal," he said recently. "I don't like it, but you wouldn't have any campaign if you didn't."

Fundraising is a competitive sport. Campaigns aren't just competing against opposing camps within the same race but also against every other candidate that donors could give to. With a presidential election, the national races will soak up a certain amount of the available donor funds.

Many donors, though, have interests primarily in state matters. With the only high-profile statewide race being for the U.S. Senate, Everett and others lower on the ballot won't have to contend against candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, labor commissioner or superintendent.

Part of what's made the Obama fund-raising so remarkable -- beyond its shear totals -- is its success in finding a million small givers who were never the targets of other candidates in the donor competitions of past years.

The question is whether any other candidates can duplicate even a margin of his success using the same high-tech tactics or if his candidacy is unique in that respect as in so many others.

Campaigns wanting to reach voters for the July 15 primary are already producing their mailers and broadcast ads. Few printers or electronic outlets extend credit to campaigns since losers are extremely hard to collect from, and the postal service is a cash-only operation with all customers.

So, in many ways, the die is almost cast. The financial reports won't have to be filed with the State Ethics Commission and the Federal Election Commission until July 8, but the opportunity for raising usable funds is nearly over.

Those reports, coming just a week before the primary, won't tell the whole story, but they'll tell much of who's winning the fundraising contest and, by extension, who has the mother's milk needed to influence voters.