Dr. William Brock wrote
an article recently which calls for Ron Paul to reject matching funds because they come from coerced means (the $3 check box on your tax forms) and it would send the wrong signal to those new to the libertarian movement. I wrote Dr. Brock and explained to him that the check box was voluntary, even though it is displayed on tax form which is not voluntary. He wrote back, thanked me for my thoughts and stuck to his guns that the matching funds were inherently gained by coercion. So be it.
As I looked into the nature and limitations of the matching funds program I came across the spending limits that are imposed on each candidate. Candidates who receive matching funds are restricted to how much they can spend on each state based on the state's population. So for New Hampshire the spending limit is around $750,000 and for California it is in the $15 million range. Iowa and New Hampshire being the first contests and of small population are the states that are of importance in this matter because of these spending limitations. Some candidates like John McCain plan to get around this factor by buying media in nearby Massachusetts and have their ads be seen and heard in the metropolitan areas of New Hampshire. The market in Massachusetts is more expensive that New Hampshire but a candidate could double their possible expenditures over New Hampshire. This might be a good strategy for Ron Paul but the campaign would have to price out the cost differential between the two markets to see if is worth it.
Another strategy would be to decline the matching funds and go all out in New Hampshire. Ron Paul has a good chance of taking that state and the boost he would get for a win there would be free advertising in the Super Tuesday states and if he doesn't get the overall nomination he would get some media cred, a possible convention speech and maybe shape the other candidate's positions on the war. The other thing that winning New Hampshire would accomplish is to effectively neuter whomever wins Iowa (Mitt?). So rather than this being a steamroller for that candidate (Iowa, New Hampshire then all the Super Tuesday states) these first two contests effectively nullify each other (hello Ruby!).
For Ron Paul to get the nomination he needs to get both Iowa and New Hampshire. I remain optimistic and I don't think the scientific polls accurately reflect Ron Paul's numbers but I also don't think Iowa is Paul Country. If you've ever driven across Iowa and seen the hundreds of thousands of "support our troops" stickers on the cars, you know what I mean. It'll be a major miracle if an anti-war candidate can take that state. If Paul can pull off both Iowa and New Hampshire he's got a good chance of being the nominee and the GOP feathers are going to start really flying.
