Kerry may delay official nomination

Senator John F. Kerry may delay his nomination as the Democratic presidential standard-bearer in Boston this July in order to deprive President Bush of a significant spending advantage during the final phase of the campaign. Such a move would be unprecedented in presidential politics and may sharply alter the tone of the convention here, campaign officials and top Democrats said yesterday.

Senior Kerry advisers said that they were considering delaying the nomination process to Sept. 1 and that Kerry would deliver a speech to the delegates at the July 26-29 convention, but not an acceptance speech. The Democratic National Committee would change party rules so that delegates who normally vote at the convention could vote later over the Internet or by proxy on Sept. 1 when ''the nomination would be formalized, accepted, and documented," Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said yesterday.

Under federal election law, candidates can spend the money they have raised during the primary season until they are nominated by their party, at which time they are obligated to use the public financing system to pay for campaign ads and events. As a result, Kerry is considering a strategy intended to eliminate the five-week period between conventions, a time when Kerry, as a nominee, would have to start paying for his campaign from his $75 million general election account.

By contrast, under federal election law, President Bush could raise and spend primary-season dollars until he is forced to tap into his own $75 million account when he is nominated during the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 Republican convention in New York. By that time, Democratic officials estimate, Kerry could have spent $10 million to $15 million.

''We won't fight this election with one hand behind our back," Cutter said. She said that delaying the nomination is just one strategy under consideration.

This strategy has never been tried before, and it is has several potential pitfalls, analysts said. Whether the proposal is even permissible still must be determined, both Kerry officials and Federal Election Commission officials said yesterday.

Beyond the legalities, changing the purpose of the Democratic convention could pose risks: For decades, the acceptance speeches of newly nominated presidential nominees have been the dramatic high point of campaigns, and they usually trigger a bounce for them in the polls. A Democratic convention that neither produces an official nominee nor a speech by Kerry that includes the words, ''I accept your nomination," could leave some voters confused or deflated.

Kerry, asked by reporters last night about the nomination strategy, said he wanted his aides to speak for him on the issue. Pressed whether he would receive and accept the nomination at the July convention, Kerry answered, ''I intend to accept the nomination."

Republicans seized on the idea floated by the Kerry campaign and unleashed one of their favorite lines of attack against Kerry, saying that he was trying to have it both ways.

''Only John Kerry could be for a nominating convention, but be against the nomination," said a statement issued by Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman. ''This is just the latest example of John Kerry's belief that the rules are for other people, not for him."

Democrats picked July 2004 for their convention on the assumption that the nominee would need access to the $75 million in federal funds quickly, after a bruising primary fight. But because Kerry clinched the nomination relatively early, the party has united behind him, and he is enjoying record fund-raising.

Republican Party officials argued that Kerry should abide by the decisions that his party has made. Under federal election law, the campaigns must spend from their general election funds, once candidates are formally nominated.

''This has never happened before, but the language is pretty simple that you must start using general-election funds once the nomination is made," said Bob Biersack, an FEC spokesman. Biersack said that the only way the campaign could be certain about the legality of the idea is by seeking an advisory opinion from the commission; the Kerry campaign has yet to do so, he said.

Raising the stakes for the city and state, too, the Democratic Party has received about $15 million in taxpayer funds to hold its nominating convention. Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman who is now president of the independent Campaign Legal Center, predicts that Democrats would probably have to return the money if the event did not produce a nominee. ''If this convention doesn't produce a nominee in Boston, what's the point?" Potter said.

Some campaign-finance watchdogs chided Kerry for fearing a Bush money advantage when, in the first four months of 2004, Kerry raised $85 million to the Bush campaign's $65 million. Kerry has also benefited from a collection of Democratic-leaning groups that are running ads and promoting the party's agenda.

Republican National Committee lawyers immediately began researching the implications such a move would have on federal dollars that flow to the convention. Darrell Crate, chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, said he was concerned that state or city taxpayers would be on the hook if the convention sacrifices federal dollars. He said that the traffic delays in and around Boston would hardly be worth the hassle if there isn't a formal nomination. ''I feel bad for the hundreds of thousands of commuters who would be inconvenienced just for a pep rally," Crate said.

While Democratic Party officials publicly lined up behind the Kerry campaign's brainstorming, some said privately that they, too, were concerned about the fate of the $15 million in federal funding and that the convention would lose its potency if it did not yield a nominee. According to one Democratic Party official, who spoke on condition on anonymity, the party rules could be rewritten to transform the July gathering ''from a nominating convention to a convention for rallying around the candidate-nominee."

''I don't know if a really big rally would work," the official said.

Another concern is the Democrats' ability to have television networks cover their July convention, and especially Kerry's speech, if he is not officially nominated.

''Does it factor in? Sure," said Mark Lukasiewicz, executive producer of NBC News political coverage. ''We have to consider the news value of the convention. We don't like hearing there's one more piece of news that's not going to happen at the convention."

Holding a convention without officially choosing a nominee could also anger voters in Kerry's home state. ''People will be inconvenienced for four days, and he isn't even going to accept the nomination," said Dan Payne, a Democratic political consultant.

Convention organizers have openly fretted about getting the public and the news media to pay attention to the event. According to the Democratic National Convention's figures, the combined ABC, CBS, and NBC coverage for each party's convention dropped from about 20 hours in 1992 to just 11 hours in 2000, while ratings dipped by a third over the same period.

Local organizers were caught off-guard by the Kerry campaign yesterday.

Mayor Thomas Menino told WBZ-TV, "I was very suprised by it." This week's announcements of road closings for the convention have already taken a toll, he said. "After being beat up two days, and now this. . . . It's just a question about why this wasn't brought up earlier."

Some leading Democrats who like the delay strategy said they were counting on the public not caring about such money-driven, procedural moves. ''Maybe Kerry can say something like, 'I accept your nomination on contingency,' and cough when he says the last two words," said Carter Eskew, a senior adviser to Democratic nominee Al Gore in 2000.

Mark Jurkowitz of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Patrick Healy can be reached at phealy@globe.com.