Campaign Fundraising Part II: It's more than digits

How much you raise matters

Graphic Taken from an excellent site:
 http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/derivatives/bank_exposure.html

Earlier we discussed the reality of money in politics given that we live in a free society where the expression of ideas - and paying to express those ideas - is a protected First Amendment right.  This article discusses the political impact money has on the perception of support that a candidate has in a race.  

At the end of each month, campaigns are to disclose their receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission.  There are several numbers that can be used to argue that your campaign is riding the popular tail winds to victory.  

This post talks about how much money is raised.

It goes without saying that you want to be able to raise a lot of money.  Raising more money than your opponents gives the perception that you are the front runner.  Thus far, at least since this summer of 2012, Mitt Romney has out raised Barack Obama and that disparity has become a recurring fundraising message of the not just the Romney campaign but the Obama campaign as well.

On June 9, 2012 the Democratic Party sent out the following email under the subject heading "They outraised us."  

Britton --

This week we learned Mitt Romney and the Republican Party outraised us in May, bringing in $76 million to our $60 million. And that deficit is even worse once you include the millions of dollars a few wealthy special interests and billionaires are pouring into super PACs and outside groups.

If you don't want to read any further, I don't blame you. Support Democrats today and help build our grassroots organization with a donation of $3 or more.

For anyone wondering how one billionaire can influence an election, here's a perfect case study: Sheldon Adelson.

This casino owner's spending is a textbook example of the Republican battle plan. Here are just a few of his "investments" this year:

    -- Singlehandedly keeping Newt Gingrich's presidential bid alive for months by pouring $20
    million of his family's money into a pro-Newt super PAC.

    -- Donating $5 million to Speaker John Boehner's super PAC, aimed at protecting the GOP majority in the House, and targeting vulnerable Democrats.

    -- And just this week, after meeting with Romney last month, pledging $1 million to a Romney-
    affiliated super PAC.

They say one person can change the world, but I'm pretty sure this isn't what they meant.

As Democrats, we aren't counting on wealthy patrons to buy this election. We rely on millions of Americans stepping up to grow this organization and provide the resources to open field offices, organize on the ground, and push back against Adelson, the Koch brothers, and all the rest of these billionaires trying to use their money to control our future.

We're counting on people like you -- and that means we need everyone to step up if we're going to win.

When Romney out raised Obama again in June, the Democratic Party sent out an email under Joe Biden's name on July 28, 2012 with the subject line "Outraised":

Britton -- For the last two months, Governor Romney and the Republicans have outraised us -- and in the last month alone, they raised $35 million more than we did. They've caught up to us in the fundraising race for the first time this election, and we have to do everything we can to close the gap now -- before it's too late. Donate $3 or more today to help close the gap. We keep reminding you about this fundraising gap because when Governor Romney and the Republicans outraise us by that much, it matters. This fundraising gap means that Republicans may not only outraise us, they could outspend us this election -- on TV, in the field, and online. You better believe that when they're using their fundraising advantage to blanket the airwaves with misleading attack ads, Democrats across the board will feel the consequences. Our next big fundraising deadline is just a few days away -- and we have the chance to reverse this trend and keep Governor Romney and the Republicans from outraising us for the third month in a row. So help close the fundraising gap before the deadline on Tuesday. It's critically important. Donate $3 or whatever you can today. Of course it is not entirely that simple.  According to an excellent interactive chart in the New York Times - In June 2012: Romney raised $32,468,000 Obama raised $45,300,000 It was the donations to the political parties that put the Republicans over the top in June. RNC: $39,154,000 DNC $17,639,00 Add to that the SUPER-PAC contributions: Republican Restore our Future PAC:  $20,728,000 Democrat Priorities USA: $6,156,000.00 In total, during 2012, the Democrats have raised $587.7 million compared to $446.6 million for the Republicans - so it would take Romney et. al. to raise an additional $60 million above and beyond the Democrats each month to just erase the fundraising lead enjoyed by the Democrats. QUESTION:  Are you more likely to give to a candidate if he or she is raising more money than the opposition?

Negative Campaigning I: It's Nothing New
Yet, we will be told it's the worse mud slinging ever

Vice President Joe Biden lurched into all-too-familiar gaffe-territory when he went off the teleprompter and told the mostly African American Audience in Danville, Virginia, "[Romney] said in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules. Unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains."  Later in his speech, Biden assured the Virginia crowd, " "With you, and I mean this, with you we can win North Carolina again."

The Romney campaign responded quickly, pulling out what appears to be well-honed theme, "[Obama's] campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the presidency," Romney said. "Another outrageous charge came a few hours ago in Virginia, and the White House sinks a bit lower. This is what an angry and desperate presidency looks like."

Along with kissing babies, campaign rallies, and unrealistic promises, we are assured that the media and casual observers will decry how the political discourse has sunk to a new level of mud slinging.  Don't believe it for a moment, contested presidential political campaigns have always gone negative.

Political Historian Joseph Cummins, the author of "Anything for a Vote" said, "After researching every presidential contest from 1789 to 2004, my answer is that elections are not getting dirtier. They’re just as dirty as they have always been. " 

Cummins provides the following examples:

• 1836: Congressman Davy Crockett accuses candidate Martin Van Buren of secretly wearing women’s clothing: “He is laced up in corsets!”
• 1864: Presidential candidate George McClellan describes his opponent, Abraham Lincoln, as “nothing more than a well-meaning baboon!”
• 1960: Former president Harry Truman advises voters that “if you vote for Richard Nixon, you ought to go to hell!”

The 1828 Election between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson descended into baseless charges, such as:

• John Quincy Adams was a pimp to the Czar of Russia; and
• Andrew Jackson was engaged in adultery.

1964 - Lyndon B. Johnson claimed challenger Barry Goldwater would start a nuclear war sending the world into "darkness" in the infamous Daisy Attack Ad.

The Presidential Election of 1800 was the first hotly contested race pitting John Adams against Thomas Jefferson.  At the time candidates campaigned through surrogates.  The campaign got ugly quick.  Jefferson had others claim that Adams had a "hideous hermaphoditical character, which has neither the force nor firmness of a man."  Adams' supporters called Jefferson "mean spirited, low lived fellow, the son of half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

Anyone who tells you that political campaigns have grown too negative as if in earlier years we had a more elevated discourse about the issues, simply is ignorant of history and has a short memory.  So long as negative campaigning works (and it does) - we will have it.

QUESTION:  I believe that this is a problem that does not have a real solution.  Do you agree? If not why not?

Presidential Politics: Picking a Vice-President

Not much of a help in the end

Mitt Romney selected Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan to be his Vice-President thankfully ending weeks of uninformed speculation about who he would pick.  The choice is often more symbolic than substantive in that it gives insight into the thinking process of the Presidential Candidate.  

Traditionally, the Vice-President Candidate should add assets where the Presidential candidate is lacking.  (Thus it can be an interesting window into the candidate's self-perceived weak spots.)  There are several areas where a Vice-President can augment the campaign in one or more ways:

• Boosting the Outsider or Insider factor of the ticket.  Clinton (as Governor was an outsider) and he selected Al Gore.   Reagan selected George H.W. Bush.  Dukakis selected Lloyd Bentsen.  

• Boosting the Ticket's Experience.  Younger, less experienced Presidential Candidates need an experienced elder statesman on the ticket.  Obama selected Joe Biden.   George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney.  Dukakis selected Lloyd Bentsen. 

• Boosting a Political Faction's Representation.  Presidential Candidates may select a trusted member of the more liberal/conservative wing of their party in order secure their passionate support.  McCain (a moderate Republican) selected the more conservative Sarah Palin.  George HW Bush selected more conservative Dan Quayle.  Robert Dole selected more conservative Jack Kemp.  Ronald Reagan selected more moderate George HW Bush.  

• Boost the Demographic Appeal.  Adding a Vice President of a particular demographic group may attract votes from that group.  McCain (2008) and Walter Mondale (1984) selected female Vice-Presidents, Sarah Palin and Geraldine Ferraro respectively.  

• Boost State or Regional Appeal.  Adding a Politician from a different region, or a specific battle state may help Candidate do better in that location.  John Kerry (from the Northeast) selected John Edwards from North Carolina.  Dukakis (from the Northeast) selected Texan Lloyd Bentsen.  George HW Bush selected rust-belt Indiana Senator Dan Quayle.

• Boost Party Unity.  It is not uncommon for the Presidential nominee to select one of his rivals for the nomination in order to unite the party.  Obama (2008) selected former rival Joe Biden.  John Kerry (2004) selected John Edwards.  Reagan (1980) selected former rival George HW Bush.  

Of all the above reasons, enhancing state or regional appeal appears to be the least effective rationale for selecting a Vice President.  States that trend toward one party or another typically stay that way.  John Edwards failed to carry his home state of North Carolina for Kerry in 2004.  George HW Bush still carried Texas despite Bentsen being on the opposite ticket.  (Although GHW Bush  hailed from Texas as well.)  

My personal assessment is that the Ryan pick by Romney boosts state and regional appeal as well as energizes the Tea Party faction of the GOP.  Ryan also adds insider Federal Government experience to the ticket.  It remains to be seen if the addition puts Wisconsin's ten electoral votes into play.  The addition comes at a possible cost:   Democratic Strategists believe Ryan's Medicare Proposals will alienate the Senior voters in Florida.  With 29 Electoral votes there are very few realistic paths to the necessary 270 Electoral votes needed to win for Romney.

QUESTION: Were you ever influenced for a candidate you otherwise would not have supported - because of the Vice Presidential pick?