Posted on 01/15/2004 7:05:24 PM PST by Beck_isright
WASHINGTON -- Flush with cash, the Republican National Committee is ready to spend in elections from statehouses to the White House this year while its Democratic rival is still at its starting point, trying to raise enough to help its presidential nominee compete.
The parties' bankrolls as 2004 began offer a striking look at the effect sweeping new campaign finance restrictions are having on them. The RNC had three times more cash on hand than the Democratic National Committee: $33.1 million, compared with about $10 million for the DNC.
When the law took effect in November 2002, "we lost 80 percent of our disposable income," DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said in an Associated Press interview. "We have made very tough, hard choices in this building to prepare ourselves for the future."
The law's ban on the raising of "soft money" - corporate, union and unlimited donations - by national party committees cost both national committees millions of dollars.
But the RNC has long raised millions more than the DNC in "hard money," limited donations from individuals and political committees that are the only kind the parties can now accept. Soft money was the only financial area where the Democratic committee kept pace with the GOP.
In all, the RNC raised about $105.5 million last year. The DNC raised $42 million. Both spent millions reaching out to potential donors and voters - but the Republican committee was able to spend millions more the DNC.
In the presidential race, each committee can spend roughly $16 million in coordination with its nominee, along with the candidates' own fund raising. While the RNC has all it needs for that and more, the DNC has $10 million raised and about $6 million to go.
McAuliffe expects it will be late March before the DNC accumulates that funding. That means the general-election season will be getting under way just as the DNC starts raising money for TV ads, get-out-the-vote drives and other non-presidential-specific spending.
The RNC's cash advantage will let it pump money into campaigns up and down the ticket while orchestrating a party-wide get-out-the-vote effort.
While the top priority is helping President Bush win re-election, spending will go beyond close presidential states to every state where it is needed, RNC spokeswoman Christine Iverson said.
McAuliffe said his committee plans spending in target presidential states that will also benefit candidates in congressional, state and local races. It's too soon to say whether it will contribute directly to candidates' campaign funds, he said.
McAuliffe spends three to four hours on the phone daily raising money and frequently hits the road for fund-raisers, including events in New York City, Detroit, Atlanta and Houston this month.
The RNC's fund-raiser-in-chief is Bush, who raised $14 million for it at one event last fall and will likely match or exceed that this year.
Despite the GOP's healthy budget, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said the party will watch its dollars closely.
"The RNC has traditionally provided the infrastructure for get-out-the-vote and voter identification efforts on our side. On their side they have relied on outside groups to do that," Gillespie said.
Money isn't everything. A better message and more motivated group of activists can trump another party's financial advantage, said Paul Beck, an Ohio State University political science professor.
But there are advantages to a flush bank account. The cash disparity between the RNC and DNC may make itself particularly felt in legislative races, elections involving challengers and voter drives in close races, Beck said.
There are other places within the parties for candidates to turn for campaign cash. Safe congressional incumbents often give to others, and each party has a Senate and House fund-raising committee, for example.
The House GOP committee has dwarfed its Democratic counterpart in money. At the end of September, according to the most recent figures available, the Republican committee had raised $64 million, with $8.4 million in the bank. The Democratic committee brought in $22 million, with $5 million on hand and $876,228 in debt.
The two Senate committees have been closest. The GOP committee had $23 million raised and $7.3 million in the bank as October began; the Democratic committee raised $17 million, with $1.2 million on hand.
How can unions be hurting? They're one of the very few entities in the world that has a compulsory base of donations.
I would appropriate generous amounts to Republican strongholds and add a special concentration in Florida, California, and New York.
Well, it depends. They don't get 'paid' by their employers while they politic. But many of them have paid positions within the union that are funded by the companies who hire union workers. They are basically paid not to work at the 'plant' but at the union hall. What they do on 'union' time can be 100% politics. It's very common for former elected officals to be given 'consulting' positions within a union until they can run for their elected office. Quite a racket, eh?
Like I said, how can unions be hurting? LOL
As if the DNC is worried about obeying the law.
I wouldn't count on them if I was Dean. ALot of them are in Clintons pocket, Soros will go all out, but alot of those groups aren't even coming close to getting involved the primary or the election. The few that did get involved, either went Gephardt or Clark (who was referred by Clinton).
These groups are going to sit back, let Dean boy get slammed, and come full force for everything else, to set up 2008.
Ummm. They have a compulsory donation for political purposes. I don't know what their standing is now, but they raised and spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $250-300 Million in the 1996 Election cycle. That dwarfed pretty much everything else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.