« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Democrats UNITE! Time to Put Our Money Where Our Mouths and Help Howard Dean's DNC
Cross posted from The Left Anchor
If you haven't already seen them, here are the May fundraising numbers along with the running totals for 2008:
May $ May Spent CoH
DNC 4.8 5.3 4.0
RNC 24.4 19.3 53.5DCCC 6.1 4.2 47.2
NRCC 5.0 5.1 6.7DSCC 5.9 5.0 38.5
NRSC 4.9 2.7 21.6Total D: 16.8 14.4 89.7
Total R: 34.3 19.3 81.7
The extended primary season has really taken its toll on the DNC. Obviously, as each candidates' supporters were seeking to secure victory, they donated largely to the individual campaigns, and not to the DNC. The Washington Post examined this issue at the end of May.
Hassan Nemazee, a finance co-chair for the Clinton campaign and longtime DNC fundraiser, said that without a nominee, the party's ability to raise money is severely limited.
"People are not going to give until that candidate puts in place an apparatus that allows for people to feel as though there is an institutional memory in place, so they know someone will remember they gave the money," he said.
One longtime party strategist familiar with the inner workings of the DNC went further, acknowledging that although raising money is always "a difficult thing during a primary" for the DNC, "there is serious concern about their complete lack of fundraising success."
DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton acknowledged that the lengthy nomination battle has posed problems for the party's fundraising. "Our mission is to elect the president," she said. "Donors to both campaigns have understandably been focused on helping their candidate win the nomination, not giving to the DNC. . . . We're confident our fundraising will take off."
Already, she noted, the party has brokered agreements with Obama and Clinton to create joint fundraising committees that will allow the party to sock away money for the fall campaign. The DNC will also hold a major fundraiser featuring Al Gore and organized by top fundraisers for both candidates at the end of this month in Manhattan.
I certainly hope the DNC does pick up in fundraising over the course of the summer, but it seems unlikely that the DNC can recover. Over the course of the 2004 cycle under Terry McAuliffe, the DNC raised a whopping $311 million dollars. In contrast, during the 2008 cycle, the DNC has thus far only raised $77.5 million. Moreover, in a change from previous policy, the DNC will no longer be accepting PAC money during the 2008 campaign, in accordance with Obama's decision to forgo such donations. In the 2004 cycle, PACs and lobbyists accounted for 10% of total DNC receipts ($31 million). While this is the principled call (and, in my opinion, obliterates McCain and the RNC's claim to purity on campaign finance), it also demands that Democratic supporters step up their small dollar donations.
I encourage every Democratic supporters to sign up for a Democracy Bond. I've had one for about two years now. It's a commitment to give a monthly donation to the DNC, which they will automatically charge to your credit or debit card. I'm rather poor, so I can only give $20 a month, but given that the blogosphere is millions strong, even this small contribution would quickly add up to a DNC powerhouse. Even if you can only give $5 or $10 a month, it's still very much worth it, because if all of us did the same, it would add up to $20 or $30 million a month the DNC could raise without even expending effort on it. Howard Dean's taken a lot of flack for his "50 State Strategy" and the massive amount he's spend on building an enormous voter file, but he's pressed on because it's what he believes in, and it's why he was elected. At a time when some Democrats are disillusioned by recent party actions, the DNC is still a place where you can find a principled operation continuing to fight even against the will of certain party leaders who would have us continue the swing-state, once-every-two-years strategy that so dramatically weakened the party of the course of the 1990s.
Here's a particularly odd fact: despite all the fuss over the 50 state strategy, according to that same Washington Post article mentioned above, it only costs $9 million a year to implement it. Why anyone would find something objectionable about the DNC spending 10% of its average annual budget on building infrastructure is something I can't understand. Especially in light of the recent string of Democratic victories in Republican strongholds. I'm thankful that Obama looks poised to keep Dean on as party chairman, and I believe it is important to show our support for his winning strategy with regular financial contributions. So go on, get a Democracy Bond today. Every little bit helps.








Comments (19)
If you can't donate, you can at least recommend :)
June 24, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
So who precisely are the beneficiaries of the DNC? I usually donate via Act Blue, and would like to target donations to the half of congressional Democrats that voted against the FISA immunity bill. Not sure that DNC fits that bill. I know the DLC doesn't fit it at all, but never donate to them anyway.
June 24, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
DNC is at this point basically for long-term party building, creating voter databases and keeping paid organizers in all 50 states. They'll also be involved in the presidential campaign this season.
To donate to Congressmen who voted against FISA you'd need to donate to each of their campaigns separately.
June 24, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds good.
June 24, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
As the table points out, the RNC is rolling in dough and will be funding mcsame or ad drives for him with that money, I believe. I'm not at all knowledgable about how Parties work, but isn't it important for the campaign as well as Party building that the DNC get funding?
June 24, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fifty state initiative so far has had the effect of electing Republicans in Democratic clothing. I have no interest in helping Harry Reid and Obama move the Democratic Party to the right.
After the unfair treatment of Hillary my household has been returning nasty notes to the DNC rather than a small check.
Of course, Obama does not want the DNC to take PAC money -- he wants them totally dependent on him.
June 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The enormous amount that will be raised by Obama be rejecting public financing in the general election means that there will be less available for people to donate tot he DNC, DSCC, DCCC, and local candidates directly. Most people have a finite amount of funds to give - particularly those small donors.
So the DNC raising less is to be expected. Not to mention some Hillary voters are still pissed off at the DNC (myself included). I know I am not sending $$$ there, but will be supporting my local candidate.
June 24, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not donating a dime to the democrats while they try to shove this 'comprising' FISA bill down our throats. That's like paying them to throw away our civil liberties. Speaker Pelosi help rush this bill through the house and then sent out a fundraising email. Insane! The DNC may not have control but I will show not support for the party when its leaders act like caving, meek, wimps! I will wait for a moment of true courage and leadership. That's when they will see me give them energy. If we need to 'be the change we seek', then I refuse to be a caving, meek, wimpy democratic citizen that supports them when they to the wrong thing.
June 24, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
People who give money have influence, people who do not have none. Politicians meet with people who give them a ton, not with those who don't give them a dime. They respond to people who are ready to do something for them, not those who will not.
So, I think you are employing the opposite strategy of what will work for you. Get together with 10,000 of your best friends who are worked up over the FISA thing. Give yourselves a catchy name. Put in $100 each then say to the candidate here's my million, let's have a chat.
June 24, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pssst - Move On.org is trying that bullying tack with Obama and it doesn't seem to be getting them anywhere. In fact many people who support Obama are criticizing Move On.org for calling Obama out on his new position even though they themselves also oppose the FISA compromise.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/22/moveon-obama-must-keep-hi_n_108514.html
This proves that politicians, even confronted by a loyal following that they've made promises to and have contributed money to their campaign, will do in the end what is politically expedient rather than what they pledged to do or what is right. Contributing money does not guarantee that your concerns will be heard and pledges will be upheld. At this point the candidate is thinking where else are you going to go. And all that bargaining leverage you earned with your "money" has gone down the tubes.
June 24, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think you are wrong. MoveOn has a platform on this issue because they gave and give money. Otherwise they are a grievance committee. Also they raise their own money to make these ads. The net root shave power because they participate.
I don't think money guarantees anything, nor should it. But if you want to have power then disarming yourself makes no sense. I think taking your ball and going home when you don't get your way, is exactly the wrong way to go. Someone else will come up with a ball and you'll be sitting at home alone.
We'll see if their is in fact a filibuster over immunity and how Obama reacts. Personally I don;t get the whole thing about immunity.
By the way, what's your stake in this issue? I mean do Clintonites give a squat about FISA?
June 24, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I argue for respect of the rule of law and civil liberties. Retroactive immunity for the telecom companies flies in the face of that. They were asked to violate our privacy with no legal governmental authority and did so willfully. Why should they be protected for that? If the FISA laws needed to be changed, then they should have gone through the proper legislative process and changed the social contract (with the approval of our representatives). That didn't happen and the telecom companies should not get a pass.
Obama knows voting against FISA compromise may hurt him with moderates. The question is does he stand with what he pledged to those on the left or change and pander to moderates? Your argument that money and donations equal a seat at the table would seem to favor him heeding the loud calls for move on.org to stick by his pledge. That doesn't seem to be happening because he knows the primary is over and the liberal wing is in his back pocket. It's a strong case of money and influence does not equal power even with an organization as well organized and well financed as move on.org.
I understand this is a tough issue for Obama and I am a pragmatic idealist. Sacrifice this vote now to improve the chances of return to rul of law once he's elected. Move on.org (which I am not member of) has every right to be livid that they invested time and money into a candidate that when will abandon an improtant cause that he argued for so fervently when it is inconvenient to his larger goals. But honestly what choice does Move On have at this point? Support McCain? Encourage their members not to vote? If Obama changes his position on FISA, their options are as limited as the individual voters who don't belong to an association.
June 24, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I would love the same understanding for a pragmatic Barack that you gave to a pragmatic Hillary.
You didn't assume she would rule like a neocon, despite some pretty right of center votes and positions. You assumed she had a bigger plan in mind and were willing to give her a chance.
Barack has a long history (not to mention two best-selling books) that are pretty clear about who he is and how he will govern. I am not saying I enjoy having to defend contradictory stances on his part, but I do believe he is still the man he seems to be. That this particular shift is more about winning than political philosophy.
Seems a to be a reasonable tactic to being elected president in this country with more than a bare 50%+1 victory.
June 25, 2008 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I commend you, Big Blue, but as lbrillante demonstrates, perhaps it's the wrong time to be asking the net roots to donate to the DNC. You'd do much better to try to hit up the normal Democratic voters.
June 24, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you implying that only "normal Democratic voters" care about the economy, Iraq, health care, global warming and destroying Al Qaeda?
June 24, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, but the average (or normal) Democratic voter is not a screaming liberal net root disavowing Obama over FISA.
June 24, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evidently many of you haven't seen the polls showing as many as 60% of voters oppose illegal spying. Pretty arrogant of you to anoint yourselves and your lack of concern for our rights as "normal".
June 24, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you tell me that 60% of those that would normally vote and donate to Obama will no longer do so as a result of this, then you have a point.
No one's claiming that FISA is a good thing, nor is anyone claiming that Obama's decision is a good one. Get your head out of your ass, please, and stop assuming ignorance on the parts of others.
June 24, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Provide the context for the stat. 60% of democrats oppose "illegal" spying. 60% of republicans think we should do whatever is necessary to combat "terrorism" even if it means bending some rules. Independents are split 50-50. This issue is far from cut and dried for many Americans.
June 25, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment