RNC Beating DNC At The Money Game
While the GOP is having a terrible time raising money for their House and Senate races, portending further Dem gains in Congress, the Republicans are in fact having huge success in another area.
The Republican National Committee has announced that they have $31 million cash-on-hand at the end of March, money that can be used to assist John McCain as well as down-ballot races this Fall.
Quarterly figures aren't available yet for the DNC, but it's likely they'll be way behind -- at the end of February, they only had $4.8 million on hand, with $250,000 in outstanding debts.
This is essentially a tradeoff that comes with Howard Dean's 50-state strategy -- if the DNC's primary mission is to act as a financial and organizational clearinghouse for state parties and candidates, it ends up not raising very much money for itself. We'll find out in the months to come whether the Republicans can successfully exploit this weakness.
Late Update: A DNC source reminds us that the Dems don't have a nominee yet. When that happens, the DNC is confident that the fundraising will pick up significantly.
Good call on the whys and wherefores. It's likely McCain'll have to lean on the RNC hard to balance out either Democratic canidate. And as you guys point out elsewhere, the RNC'll also be hard-pressed to support it's on-the-run candidates.
On top of all that, it would take only an email or two from Obama to fill the DNC's coffers, at this point in the game. Just need to get out of the Primary...
April 17, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can thank Hillary Clinton for the lag.
No one's giving any money to the DNC or to any progressive 501 C 3s until Hillary bows out.
We can't move forward until we are moving together.
This is a monumental struggle between the Corporate Dems (and their masters, the corporations) and the people of the United States and Obama.
The greedy corporations and their slaves/i.e mainstream media won't let go of their ill gotten goods and their illegal war without a fight.
Its time to send Hillary packing for the good of the entire world.
April 17, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard many Obama supporters say as much when the DNC calls them asking for donations. I am one of them; they'll get money from me once Obama is the nominee. Until then, my donations are going to him. If Clinton gets the nod, then I will give money to downticket candidates.
April 17, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was my response when I was called recently as well. Right now, all my money is going to Obama.
April 17, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it wouldn't be a bad idea at all for Obama supporters to write or call the DNC and express this very clearly to them. Just let them know that they don't get a dime until we have a nominee. A little grassroots show of power.
If Obama doesn't get the nomination, I'll probably send most of my donation support to Al Franken. Either that, or I'll continue giving to Obama and write him in.
April 17, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not giving a dime to the DNC, and I have told them so, repeatedly, when they call. I give to individual candidates.
The DNC is far too much of the traditional, inside DC Democrat establishment for me to contribute to.
April 17, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's certainly your choice, but I would caution you to consider the difference between the DNC and the other D*C committees. I give to candidates rather than the DCCC and the DSCC because of the reasons you describe; I haven't been pleased with many the candidates they've chosen to support (and oppose), and I'd rather make that decision myself.
But the DNC is primarily involved in party-building (at least it is now.) Campaigns sweep in and do the work that is best for that particular campaign and then disappear, often transferring little information to the local folks. Party-building is the long-term voter identification and registration, volunteer recruitment, etc. that campaigns don't have the time to do, but is essential for continued to success (as well as electing good lower-level candidates without the big name recognition and fundraising power.)
So it's fine if you don't trust a DC organization with your money, but in this case, campaign contributions aren't a substitute -- please consider your state and local party organizations as well, if we're going to keep this wave going.
April 17, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DNC in its current format is absolutely worthy of your support. It's the Capitol Hill committees that are the problem; the DCCC and particularly the DSCC.
April 17, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Eric, the Rasmussen numbers are still wrong. McCain leads Obama 47 to 43 and McCain leads Clinton 49 to 41.
April 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a disconnect in your post, Eric.
You're reporting on cash-on-hand, and drawing conclusions about the DNC's fundraising "weakness." In fact, the DNC has been raising and spending money at an impressive clip.
As of the end of February, the RNC had raised $108 million and spent $86 million so far this cycle; the DNC had raised $67 million and spent $66 million. Now, there's no question that there's a significant gap. But it's not the 6-1 margin that your post makes it appear to be. There's a strategic decision at work here - the DNC figures that the money is best spent as soon as its raised, laying the groundwork for a 50-state organization that can then be turned over to the presidential campaign, which will have the resources to carry it through to November. The RNC is more focused on stockpiling resources to help its candidates in the final push. Who's right? Only time will tell.
April 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some technical question:
Can the RNC use that money in the presidential race? What limitation are placed on the money?
And some theories:
Is the ongoing Democratic primary costing the DNC potential donors, because Hillary and Obama are still making big bucks from donors?
April 17, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric,
You are drawing conclusions of causality without examining the past data. What was the fundraising like last presidential cycle for both the RNC and DNC? What was the burn rate last cycle for both organizations? What was the fundraising like after a presumptive nominee was established?
Without providing that data, you can't say that the fundraising prowess of the DNC is being diminished b/c of Dean's 50 state strategy. The fundraising for the DNC might be better this cycle compared to last cycle for all we know given what you provide.
April 17, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The big story this cycle is about how most of the Dem committees are beating their GOP counterparts big-time. The DNC isn't, and it's worth looking at that in more detail. But it's important to make clear whether the DNC is doing worse than before, or whether it just hasn't improved as much as the others (particularly in light of the periodic stories in the past where "some Democrats" complain about Dean's fundraising as a way to complain about having less influence, and the fact that he's done better than McAuliffe at the corresponding point in the cycle never gets included.)
April 17, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, Hillary and Obama have blown, what, $200 million bashing each other? How is this good for the democratic party?
April 17, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed, but what can you do?
April 17, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to echo a prior post: many people, I believe, are directly supporting either Clinton or Obama at this time, and not helping the DNC (I give also to the DCCC and the DSCC and a couple of direct contributions to candidates). In other words, either Hilary or OBama will get a lot of cash once the primary ends (will it ever?).
The downside is that if the DNC is going to use money to itself
put out anti-McCain Ads, then it's strapped in that regard. And McCain continues to get a free ride on his stupid statements.
Finally, I don't think most of us really understand what the DNC
does during a campaign, as opposed to the candidates themselves and the various Congressional fund-raising committees.
April 17, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to the points above, let's remember that one could make a compelling case that the 50-state strategy was what delivered Congress back to the Dems.
April 17, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but I find it funny seeing a "Grand Theft Auto" game being advertised to the right on a political site.
April 17, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHO is behind the Barack Obama for President
"moo-vement"?
........ GE ....and a gaggle of other corporate elitists.
Are a lot of working class Americans Bitter?
Well, they SHOULD be: Another GE candidate for President (SOLD to the public by the Corporate-Controlled "Mainstream MEDIA)...Ronald Reagan...began the MASSIVE Robbery of the American people that has continued to this day.
About every day the TV Talking heads say: "The Rich are getting richer and everybody else is getting poorer"
...& You'd Think...after nearly 30 years the NEWS People would FINALLY ASK: (& Answer) WHY?
The answer is simple: Reagan cut the top tax rate down from the 70%'s to the low 30%'s.
(If you made $100 million & your tax rate was 70% you would pay $70 million to Uncle Sam & keep $30 million...earning interest, or dividends THE NEXT YEAR on that $30 million. If, instead, you paid $30 million in taxes and KEPT $70 million-You'd make a lot MORE money the next year on that $70 million)
Simple: tax the rich a lot less AND they damn sure WILL get a whole lot richer a whole lot faster. There was 2 PARTS to Reaganomics tho. The second part was: "The Two-Tier Wage Structure"
i.e. Pay the Top level "executives" a Whole LOT MORE; Pay everybody else a Whole LOT LESS. (Newspapers & TV in the early 80's had articles & coverage of the "Two-Tier Wage Structure" that CORPORATE America trotted out IN CONCERT with Reagan's election & tax cuts.)
IF its CORPORATE POLICY to PAY Everybody else a WHOLE LOT LESS-everybody else is going to get-a whole lot poorer...huh?
a. It was deliberate. b. Its been going on for nearly 30 years.
Next Question: Is Obama likely to fix it?
Answer: Hell No. Because THE SAME PEOPLE are running him for President - The SAME WAY they got Reagan/ Bush1 / Bush2 elected: MEDIA PROPAGANDA.
GE owns MSNBC & NBC. AOL Time Warner owns CNN. Westinghouse owns CBS. (GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet). They have interlocking directorships. THEY ARE the Corporate-Controllers of the Corporate-Controlled Media.
MSNBC/NBC have become the CHIEF propaganda mouthpieces of the Obama Pushers (BOPN-Barack Obama Propaganda Networks)-just like FOX has been the the Bush Propaganda Network all these years.
There are no more Journalists, no more NEWS People. They have all become court jesters & clowns doing their bit to please their corporate masters..Top Level..PAID A WHOLE LOT MORE---Media whores.
Here's a glimpse of ONE of the $Billions of TAXPAYER-RIPOFF-Reasons GE wants to "elect" Obama President: GE & Westinghouse are in the business of building nuclear power plants. GE & Westinghouse are planning to reap BILLIONS in RISK-FREE Profits from building those nukes, AND, from the $High Dollar electricity rates those nukes will produce. ( They're planning to build one of those nuclear power plants in Pennsylvania.)
The Cheney Energy Bill passed in 2005 - made it possible for the nuclear industry to begin planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants (licensing hearings are already scheduled for the first few of them).
No new nuke plants were built for 30 years because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky. The Cheney Energy Bill solved that problem by Guaranteeing TAXPAYER PAYBACK of any of the nuke loans that default (The Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50% or greater)
Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. Clinton voted against. Clinton says her Energy plan does not include nuclear & if they want to be considered they will have to FIRST Make it Cheaper and find a safe way to dispose of the nuke waste.
McCain, this week on the Campaign trail said...we just have to face it we need to start building new, "CLEAN", nuclear power plants.
i.e. The Corporate Elitists are running OBAMA AND McCain for President.
("Getting off coal to go to nuclear is like giving up cigarettes to take up smoking crack".)
April 17, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're oversimplifying. There has to be an end to oil and -- because the world is just waking up to the fact that carbon fuels = the death of the earth, as well as the fact that oil has peaked and will will only get more expensive -- there is nothing to put in its place. In the industrialized nations, we've gotten used to things like electricity and air conditioning and not lighting fires to cook. Everybody's carrying on about bringing manufacturing jobs back, but think about the energy it takes to run these one single platn. Wind and ocean power, and solar power, all are great but do you think we can transition to them in the next ten years? I hate the idea of nuclear power personally, but I understand there has to be a discussion of it, and it can't be ruled out because we don't have many choices here.
April 17, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
**The DNC deserves to be supported, and I'm happy to donate to them. Once Beelzebabe scuttles off, there will be a lot more money devoted to other Democratic races.
April 17, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
My attitude exactly. I've written to them to let them know that I'll donate as soon as we have a nominee. We should all let them know. It might press them to work a little harder at a resolution.
April 17, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, I also disagree with your analysis. The reason the DNC is behind is because Democrats are donating to the candidates and not to the Party. On the Republican side, the reverse is true.
Once we have a nominee, the DNC will be in a better position to raise money. Until then, I'd say they should watch their wallet.
April 17, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think folk ought to inform themselves as to what the DNC is spending money on these days.
They have hired and trained a large number of Field Organizers who are being placed in the states, particularly in Congressional Districts with open or competitive seats. In turn, these organizers are training campaign workers to use the new technology DNC has rolled out for reaching individual Democratic voters. For the most part, this is sponsored by the state parties that make up the DNC. It will benefit us in Senate Races, House Races, State Governor's races, State Legislative races -- and at the local government level.
When we have a Presidential nominee, all this organizational structure will become available to their General Election campaign. That's the whole point of the 50 State Project -- strong well organized and trained party structures in every state as an asset to the nominee. If you want to see assets decentralized away from DC, what this does is empower the state parties to accomplish big things next fall -- the basis for ultimate decentralization.
April 17, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
great, more of the anti-Dean silliness. ok, let me break this down for you very, very simply. people are giving their money to Obama, so that he can run on the 50 state strategy. Republicans are barely donating to McCain, because they don't like him, but they're willing to give money to the party in general. with Democrats its just the opposite. our race is still underway, in a sense, so people are giving $$ to make sure the correct candidate wins. the DCC and DSCC are flush with $$, moreso than the Repubs' counterparts. all of this reinforces Dean's strategy.
there really isn't much need for the DNC to be raising tens of millions when the leading Dem candidate is already doing so. the constant carping on Dean by fellow Dems also makes people hesitant to give him $$, he needs support, not cheap shots at his leadership which has been, on the whole, very very good.
April 17, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever I get mail from any of the Democratic acronym committees, I send them back a scathing letter saying that I'll never contribute a penny until they get rid of all the backroom-dealing crooked, spineless jerks like Rahm Emanuel, Charles Schumer (thanks for Mukasey, Chuck)and Diane Feinstein.
I've donated $500 to Obama and I donated heavily to Sec. of State Debra Bowen but I'd no sooner give money to the democratic establishment than I'd give it the Charles Gibson Capital Gains Tax Relief Fund.
Sending complaint mail in postage paid envelopes is an excellent way to make sure it gets opened and read.
April 17, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course that lead doesn't reflect the massive amounts that will be poured by Scaife, Regnery et al into 527s to smear the Dem candidate.
April 17, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would really, really like to know what the historic data for the various committees looks like. I've been wanting to pull this together myself but haven't had a chance to. Anyone?
April 17, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fund-raiser for the DNC called me last night, right in the middle of the debate. I was furious about that already, and I told him that ALL of my political donations were going to Barack Obama, at least until he receives the nomination.
Surprisingly, the caller wanted to argue with me, so we spent some time at that. Hey, I've only got so much money, and if it's being wasted because Hillary Clinton is too ambitious and too egotisical to see the writing on the wall - and the super-delegates are too cowardly to get off their butts - then that's not my fault.
I'm getting increasingly disgusted with the Democratic Party, anyway. After the past two presidential elections, I knew that most American voters are morons, but I guess I still had my simple, childish faith in Democrats. But if racism and fear-mongering, negative campaigning and divisive tactics can work with us, too,... well I'm close to giving up on the human race.
Right now, as far as politics is concerned, there is NOTHING more important to me than getting Barack Obama elected as President of the United States. Nothing else even comes close. If the Democratic Party establishment doesn't like that, they can shove it.
April 17, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm replying to integrity, but don't think this post will show up where it's supposed to.
I just wanted to say that I've been getting calls from the DNC, too, and have told them that they have to finish the primary before I'll even think about it. I think it's the long race and the uncertainty of the outcome rather than the 50-state strategy that's holding donors back. Everything I have to give is going to Obama at the moment and like others have said I will direct my money and energies to candidates closer to home if Obama doesn't get the nod.
April 17, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally lame excuse. DNC hasn't cleared that much money to state parties.
Will fundraising pick up when the nomination contest is settled? Some of it will, and some of it will drop off a cliff.
Three years into the post-McAuliffe era, the DNC has demonstrated no capacity to build capacity, and they have yet to take all their hits from two rejected big states, the disappointed followers of one or two rejected candidates, and potentially the astonished observers of a catastrophic convention.
April 17, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink