Say what? The Republican National Committee asked Howard Dean to direct organizations dedicated to defeating President Bush to abide by the old soft-money limit of $2,000 a person.

Scared of competition from these new money shops, I suppose.

Really rich folks (like George Soros) apparently aren't supposed to write big checks in presidential politics unless the rich guys donate to the Republican candidate.

It was, of course, Republicans who most bitterly fought against limiting soft money. And it is, of course, Bush's re-election campaign that's vacuuming up unprecedented amounts of money. His campaign was expected to exceed $100 million in fund raising by Thursday, exceeding the total he raised through the whole 2000 election cycle.

Dean, the Democratic front-runner, is out there in significant part because he is an innovative, successful fund-raiser. And he and his unconventional campaign were smart enough to know it is suicidal to stick with the $45 million primary season limit imposed by the federal funding match law when Bush has not. The Dean campaign has just rolled out a drive to attract contributions of $100 from 2 million donors. That's multidimensional buy-in.

Yes, there's way too much money all around poured into electing a president. And, yes, it would be a miracle of modern governance should Washington be able to wash out the place with a clean money system. But absent that, it is ridiculous to expect surrender before the contest begins. It wasn't supposed to work this way under the public financing "reforms'' that now lie in tatters. Since Bill Clinton figured out how to beat the system with soft money going to the party that then goes to support the candidate obliquely, the concept of a level financial playing field for all presidential candidates has tilted farther and farther out of whack.

Dean's decision to forgo federal matching funds knocks down the last pretense that the federal public funding system is viable. And it's clear that this will be the most expensive election — and perhaps the most sophisticated and adaptive.

Regardless of which Democrat wins the nomination, what lies ahead is probably the greatest turnout election contest in U.S. history, made possible by the greatest money machines ever assembled in American politics. In an electorate composed of about one-third Republicans, one-third Democrats and one-third swing voters, the temptation has been to believe the victory primarily lies with courting those swing voters. But 2000 told us that turnout from party bases — and in which states — could be as important in deciding the 2004 election.

As we in Minnesota understand well, mobilizing the vote from base supporters is crucial. In fact, the national strategists see this in both Minnesota and Wisconsin for the presidential contest. The electoral votes of both are considered up for grabs. Think swing states, not swing voters. That's why we in Minnesota have seen so much of President Bush. There was a time when Minnesota was taken for granted as a Democratic presidential state and, therefore, it was rare to get a presidential visit.

Now the two states are among 17 that smart money calls "battlegrounds" — for lack of a term that is not bellicose. We can dread what's ahead in the "air war.'' That much money will mean record numbers of TV campaign ads. Negative ads are designed largely to suppress turnout for what used to be called a "worthy opponent." But if this presidential contest does end up with focus on turning out the bases, as is an expert specialty of Bush's political direction, Karl Rove, then we who reside in the bull's-eye states are also going to see different appeals. An important part of that difference is coming from the very places that are a bitter cup for the dazzling Republican re-election effort: Rich, seasoned progressives who are developing operations like America Coming Together. This shop (http://www.americacomingtogether.org), which intends to put $75 million into mobilizing for the Democratic candidate in the 17 key battleground states, is funded and organized by some of the most accomplished people in progressive politics. It is not yet candidate focused, except to challenge Bush's re-election.

It's going to take almost a year to find out which bunch of deep pockets and intense organizers will prevail in the 2004 presidential election. But think turnout.