The GOP's Real Money Problem
On the surface, the RNC's financial problems aren't that bad. Yes, the party is raising less than it has in previous years, but they don't control the WH or Congress. And with a little more than $8M on hand after debts, the RNC actually has more to spend than the DNC, which has just over $7M after accounting for debts.
But those broad numbers don't tell the real story -- that since the beginning of '09, Dems have been investing millions of dollars in state parties, bolstering a ground game with which the GOP cannot compete. The monetary advantage Dems have spent more than a year and a half building has GOP strategists worried that Dems have already laid an important foundation in critical seats.
In the last 18 months, the DNC, the DCCC and the DSCC have invested more than $18.8M in state parties across the country. By comparison, the RNC, the NRCC and the NRSC have spent just under $10M, according to data compiled by the FEC.
All 3 Dem committees are outspending their GOP rivals. The DSCC has spread nearly $2.2M to 18 states, including a $350K investment in the losing effort against Brown; $313K to the NV Dem Party and $806K in PA, where Sen. Arlen Specter (D) lost his primary. The DCCC, meanwhile, has begun investing in voter-turnout programs in 26 states, spending $1.1M.
The NRSC has spent just $502K, the vast majority of it going to MA. The party spent $2K in CT as well. The NRCC, meanwhile, has dropped money in 5 states, shelling out $165K total.
While spending scandals surrounding softball equipment and risque nightclubs proved a distraction, they didn't consume a significant amount of resources. Instead, the real trouble the GOP is going to face this year is a lack of investment from the RNC.
In midterm election cycles, explained several leading GOP strategists, the NRCC and the NRSC have effectively relied on the RNC to spend its money on turnout operations. Without the ability to do so this year, those same strategists are concerned they may miss out on picking up vulnerable Dem-held seats.
The GOP has won races in which they've invested; the party has transfered more than $4.6M -- nearly half its total investment in state parties -- to VA, where Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) pulled out a big win in '09. The NRSC helped Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) win election with a timely $500K donation to the MA state party as well.
That means, for practical purposes, Dems have outspent GOPers nearly 3-1 in key states around the country. Money the national party invests in TV time is categorized as independent expenditures, while money given directly to the state goes to voter turnout.
Air wars can move numbers and soften up a candidate, as any political consultant will attest. But without a ground game aimed at actually moving voters, then getting sympathetic ones to the polls, simply outspending an opponent on TV isn't a winning strategy by itself.
Including VA, the GOP has contributed more than Dems to their affiliates in just 8 states; Dems hold a donation lead in 42 states. And in at least one of those states, the GOP's money doesn't mean much; the RNC raised money from several major donors in MI, for example, before funneling that money back to the state GOP. That inflates the amount of money the RNC appears to have given MI to $722K.
Dems, meanwhile, have invested more than $100K in 43 states. That money is going to ground operations critical to turning out sympathetic voters on Election Day -- a factor made all the more crucial when GOPers have a big enthusiasm gap.
Key states have already gotten big checks from the DNC. Dems had already sent $794K to the FL party before this month, when the DNC handed over another $400K. The party has already given $714K to OH, and it added $333K to PA this month, bringing its total investment in the state up to $776K.
"The ground game is absolutely criticial to recruit enough volunteers, to make enough phone calls and to knock on enough doors," said DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse. Even in a positive environment for the GOP, Woodhouse added, "you still have to mount campaigns. And clearly where the Republicans are going to be lacking is their ability to reach voters. And reaching voters is always a critical task, but never more so than in a midterm election."
Then again, when Dems invest in key races, they don't always win. GOPers won governors races in VA and NJ, and they won Brown's seat in MA. But in both GOV races, the GOP outspent Dems. Though the RNC only sent $13K to NJ on behalf of Gov. Chris Christie (R), far less than the $3M the DNC sent, the RGA augmented that money with $7M of its own. And in VA, the RNC spent more than $2M more than the DNC did on behalf of their nominee.
In places where Dems have been able to outspend their GOP counterparts, Dems have taken home the win. Dems have sent mor than $840K to NY, where the party won special elections in GOP-leaning districts held by Reps. Scott Murphy (D) and Bill Owens (D), while the GOP sent a relatively skimpy $470K. In PA, Rep. Mark Critz (D) won a special election with the help of more than $1.2M in DNC and DCCC investments to the state party. That was much more than the $741K the RNC has sent to the Keystone State already.
An RNC spokesman didn't immediately comment for this story. We'll update the post when they respond.
"What the RNC does, much more often than the DNC ... is pay for local party expenses (including staff pay, get out the vote efforts, office equipment meals, etc.)," Heye said in an email. Spending in VA will be helpful, he added, because GOPers are targeting 4 Dem incumbents (The NRCC has placed Reps. Gerry Connolly, Glenn Nye, Tom Perriello and Rick Boucher high on its target list).
"This committee decided to invest early in key races to help rebuild our brand and help change the environment. While we are not arguing that the RNC is responsible for any candidate's victory, there is little doubt that the victories in NJ, VA and MA put this party back on offense and in the position it is now -- poised to make strong gains in November," Heye said.
The RNC said it has actually spent more than the DNC -- $16.7M to $15.6M -- on races, including expenditures categorized as "other" throughout the FEC reports. That figure includes $711K spent in DC and more than $1.4M spent in IA.
Below, a graph showing donations from the RNC and DNC to the various state parties. For a look at NRCC, DCCC, NRSC and DSCC spending, click here [pdf].
STATE RNC DNC Alabama $20,000 $61,185 Alaska $10,000 $130,112 Arizona $50,000 $145,693 Arkansas $56,854 $179,033 California $0 $206,795 Colorado $221,274 $167,435 Connecticut $0 $120,318 Delaware $131,281 $93,671 Florida $51,700 $794,327 Georgia $0 $177,887 Hawaii $173,353 $124,094 Idaho $5,400 $112,467 Illinois $97,668 $33,943 Indiana $88,062 $127,478 Iowa $96,887 $110,853 Kansas $35,000 $109,764 Kentucky $39,648 $106,494 Louisiana $5,200 $74,757 Maine $10,067 $118,916 Maryland $45,773 $156,329 Massachusetts $86,910 $491,512 Michigan $722,869 $166,323 Minnesota $285,000 $400,306 Mississippi $30,000 $97,494 Missouri $118,774 $126,568 Montana $12,000 $141,236 Nebraska $11,000 $1,364,790 Nevada $71,085 $121,054 New Hampshire $272,884 $166,667 New Jersey $13,500 $3,078,324 New Mexico $46,874 $105,313 New York $439,000 $565,313 North Carolina $44,594 $136,381 North Dakota $34,859 $223,196 Ohio $214,321 $714,684 Oklahoma $22,000 $107,693 Oregon $208,300 $131,700 Pennsylvania $741,597 $443,428 Rhode Island $22,000 $87,080 South Carolina $35,000 $118,549 South Dakota $160 $70,323 Tennessee $0 $133,708 Texas $114,928 $168,769 Utah $10,000 $93,366 Vermont $3,500 $92,307 Virginia $4,623,691 $2,618,454 Washington $24,758 $149,354 West Virginia $0 $113,038 Wisconsin ($51,024) $106,271 Wyoming $13,911 $81,610 Total $9,310,658 $15,566,362
The Democrats definitely have a monetary advantage, and I do think it showed in the PA-12 special election. But the GOP learned in 2006 that significant monetary advantages can't always overcome strong headwinds. Plus the RGA was for some reason not included in this article. Its fundraising has been beyond impressive, and it's looking to take up some of the RNC slack. See the below excerpt from an early July Washington Post article:
"Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has turned his operation into a fundraising powerhouse in part through the help of major donors who had been longtime backers of the RNC. Last week, the committee reported raising a record $19 million in the second quarter of the year. The RGA said it has raised almost twice as much in the first half of this year as in any comparable period in the past. GOP strategists said Barbour has benefited from his longtime connections to major GOP fundraisers and from the turbulence at the RNC."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070605165.html
Why not include the fundraising totals by the Republican Governor's Association?
From January '09 to June '10, the RGA ($58 million) outraised the DGA ($40 million) by about $18 million, with a huge chunk of that money going to state parties.
To talk about the "GOP's" fundraising, without discussing the RGA, seriously distorts the financial picture.
OK, so the dems have a little more money. So what? No amount of funding advantage is going to prevent the onslaught against them coming in November. Contrary to liberal fantasy, it isn't the Republican Party that is propped up by the big-money elitists in this country, and we all know it. We don't have to donate a penny to the RNC to achieve our goals. All we have to do is show up in November....and we will.
I have invested in companies for years and there is a simple adage -- never throw good money after bad, but if you see the "smart" investors constantly putting more money in a failing venture, they are not smart, just rich and dumb. The Dems have more money and the smart people know that its desperation PLUS after the Dems get drubbed in 2010, all those "investors" who saw their investment go to a loser will sit on the sidelines in 2012 -- Obama was great at raising money in 2008, but money is money and I suspect there will be alot of intelligent Dems who close the checkbooks after Nov 3, 2010.
All well and good. But let us keep in mind in 2006 the RNC spent more than the DNC yet still the GOP got crushed in competitive races. Money is great and all to have but you actually need voters to care if they are contacted. That is where the enthusism gap comes in and I suspect it easily cancels out the money edge Democrats have. 2006 proved this.
Here we go again...money in politics
do you SERIOUSLY believe that mere money alone is going to change the minds of voters who oppose the message? There isn't enough money in the world to buy enough campaign air time to get me to support Obama(nation)Care, Cap and Trade, card check, or any of the other Commie crap that the Democrats are trying to shove down our throats.