Via Chris Cillizza at The Fix:
Some figures. Raised this year by the presidential candidates:Lost in the hubbub surrounding Super Tuesday was is the fact that late last week all of the presidential candidates -- and the various party campaign committees -- released their year-end fundraising figures.
From the presidential level to the congressional level, these numbers bode extremely poorly for Republicans already fighting a difficult national political environment because of continued public unhappiness with the war in Iraq and the state of the economy.
"It's a big deal," said one senior Republican fundraiser, granted anonymity to speak candidly, of the money gap at the congressional level. "With every retirement of a senior Republican in a swing district, the fundraising disparity becomes more and more of a problem." (Twenty-eight House Republicans have announced they are leaving Congress this year; just six Democrats have done the same.)
Clinton - $118 million
Obama - $104 million
Together they raised a whopping $222 million
Here's Cillizza on the Republicans:
Compare that total to that of the two best-funded candidates on the Republican side -- former governor Mitt Romney (Mass.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Romney collected $90 million last year -- more than a third of which ($35 million) came from his own pocket. Take Romney's massive personal contribution out of his fundraising, however, and he has collected $53.5 million from individuals. Giuliani, who dropped from the race following a disappointing third place finish in Florida last week, raised $60 million total with $57.5 million of that coming from individual contributors. Add contributions to Romney and Giuliani together and you get $150 million -- not too shabby. Subtract Romney's personal donation, however, and the two best-financed Republicans together raised $111 million from individuals -- barely more than either Clinton or Obama collected on their own.Soon(?)-to-be front runner McCain raised basically the same amount as third place John Edwards ($40 million) - who's already dropped out.
The bad news for God's Own Party continues - and it could have an effect locally.
What do I mean about it's effect locally? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Congressman Jason Altmire has raised about $1.1 million for his re-election campaign. He's spent about $275,000 and has $911,000 on hand. His opponent, the lovely and talented Melissa Hart has raised $386,000 and spent about $62,000 leaving her about $332,000 on hand. Or roughly one third of what Altmire has.Among the House campaign committees, the race for campaign cash is not even close. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee collected $67.5 million last year while the National Republican Congressional Committee raised $49.5 million.
Even worse for the NRCC: It outspent the DCCC by more than $10 million last year. At the end of the year, theDemocratic committee had $35 million in the bank -- seven times as much as the House Republicans had on hand.
If she needs a boost from the NRCC, where's that money going to come from? With House Republicans have been retiring in droves, that money is going to be stretched very very thin.
Poor guys.
6 comments:
For what it's worth, there may be a bit of time lag in the Republican money machine. This is pure speculation on my part, but consider where the moderate Republicans have been for the past eight years or so. They've seen the party hijacked. Evangelicals took a prominent role, and the fiscal sanity that many people *used* to think the Republican party stood for disappeared as GWB told us that we could have our war and our tax cuts too.
My Indiana-bred parents, who drank in GOP politics along with their mother's milk, certainly fall into this category. Both of them are pro-choice social moderates but hard-core fiscal conservatives. They've retained their GOP registration, but only because of inertia and because the political structure of their central Pa. county often makes the GOP primary the most important race of the year. Otherwise, they would have re-registered as independents sometime between the Clinton impeachment hearings and the first GWB-produced budget deficits.
In short, my parents have not been sending much money to the GOP in the past decade or so.
But they might begin to do so again if McCain wins the nomination. Maybe. Or maybe not. They are also likely to sit back and see whether the GOP is going to get (in their minds) "back on track" before they trust the party enough to open their wallets.
I'm guessing that the record Republican fund raising of the past was at least partially an artifact of reputations lasting longer than the facts support. When the GOP policies swung out of line with those of their core donors, the donors didn't really give up, at least not right away. But now they have.
And probably it will take more than just one sensible nomination to win these moderate donors back into the fold. Especially since they are aging, money is getting tighter after 15 years of retirement, and they don't feel flush with a high home value any longer.
Hey hey
Interested in joining in a political forum? Then stop by at www.discusstheworld.com
Regards
John K. says: Hmm. Four years ago when the Republicans were outraising the Democrats, the party of the Ass symbol insisted on campaing finance reform. In fact, Clinton and Feingold railed against the big money machine republicans. Howard the scream Dean constantly complained against it. My my my how times have changed. Can we say hypocrites. I can. LOL LOL LMAO
It doesn't take a great deal of perspicacity to know this can't penetrate John's wall of blind, insane loyalty to Rush. And of course, he doesn't comment to inform or convince, but only to inflame. Still, let's just address this particular distortion for the sake of those who are capable of understanding something that does not emerge from an AM radio.
Liberals and people who prefer democracy to corporatocracy -- even hyper-conservatives like John McCain -- know that the obscene sums of money that are required for successful national campaigns under the current system are bad for democracy. The money corrupts American politics and American politicians. If money is free speech, then rich folks and big companies get more freedom than poor folks. I'm pretty sure that James Madison did not have that sort of inequity in mind when he wrote the Constitution, and John Adams would cringe to see what we've done to his Bill of Rights.
If the Republicans don't like being outspent, let them agree to a constitutional amendment that trumps the right-wing Supreme Court ruling that money = free speech, and the one that says corporations are people.
Or keep bitching about the other side outspending you.
Can we say "Hypocrite?" LOL LMAO I win AGAIN!
John K. says: Now that the Democrats are outraising the Republicans corporate greed is good. Special interests are good. McCain-Feingold is just about forgotten by the Democrats. Ahh LOL not hard to spot the hypocrites. A hearty guffaw here. LOL
If she needs a boost from the NRCC, where's that money going to come from? With House Republicans have been retiring in droves, that money is going to be stretched very very thin.
The NRCC has bigger problems:
NRCC probe scares GOP
Top House Republicans were told in recent days that a former employee of their campaign committee may have forged an official audit during the contentious 2006 election cycle and that they should brace for the possibility that an unfolding investigation could uncover financial improprieties stretching back several years, according to GOP sources briefed on the members-only discussions.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has retained a forensic auditor to review its accounting for the last several election cycles, the sources said.
Enron style accounting is alive and well and working for the Republicans.
Post a Comment