Rarely a day goes by without some liberal breathlessly blurting out how evil Bush is, and that the only way they can beat him is to fight back and take the message to the people since they have no way to raise the money that the evil Republicans are showering on him. Let’s just take a quick peek at some of the rhetoric regarding Bush and money:
Bush’s money machine–as we went to press he was on track to garner more in a few weeks than all nine Democratic candidates raised in the first three months of the year–is a measure of his popularity only among people who can afford to write $1,000 or $2,000 checks. That group is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the population, and far wealthier, whiter, older and more likely to be male than the general population.
If money is the mother’s milk of politics, as one Republican fund-raiser puts it, then George W. Bush is swimming in it, thanks to a small army of “Rangers” rounding up cash for the presumptive GOP presidential candidate.
“President Bush has just passed the largest tax cut for the wealthy in history, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that he will now turn to those same people and raise record amounts of money from them. The tax bill is turning out to be quite a pay-day for the Bush Administration, as the millions saved by the super rich will go directly out of their pockets and into the pockets of the GOP.”
The beauty of it is that fundraising for Mr Bush is now virtually effortless: his presidential presence is sufficient to draw in donations. All his Republican supporters have to do is riffle through their rollerdexes in search of more phone numbers. “No one is turning down any calls or saying ‘I don’t want to contribute’,” said one of Mr Bush’s most active fund-raisers.
By contrast, raising money for Mr Bush’s Democratic candidates is hard graft. “The fundamental difference is that Bush himself spends no time on it,” Steve Elmendorf, a senior aide to Democratic hopeful Dick Gephardt who spends eight hours a day seeking contributions, told the New York Times. “He gets on a plane, shows up for 15 minutes, and leaves. And each of these [Democratic] candidates spends volumes of time on the phone asking for money.”
– Money no object as the Bush fundraising juggernaut sets off, UK Guardian, 16 June 2003
The Bush/Money meme is not limited to the professionals:
It might be infuriating, but it’s reality. Bush can raise money like no one else. Ever…
This is no surprise to any of us. The GOP will outspend the Democratic Party, by at least 2-1, maybe 3-1.
The GOP needs all that money. They know darn well they couldn’t compete with Democrats on a fair playing field. Our message beats their message any day of the week. So they are the New York Yankees of the political world — heaping piles of cash in order to win, and succeeding a great deal of the time.
The Dean campaign has shown the power of the Netroots to raise money. Having people like you and me fund a candidacy like Dean’s frees it from whoring itself to corporate interests. The results are intoxicating. And whether you love or hate Dean, you have to admit that this (the fundraising model, that is) is a future for the Democratic Party around which we can all rally.
– Bush’s fundraising “effortless,” the Daily Kos, 1 July 2003
Compare and contrast: last week we received the details of how the Republicans have worked the room along Washington’s lobbyist haven, K-Street to ensure that their party has friends in high corporate places. On the other hand, over 21,000 individuals contributed to the Dean campaign, doing their part in the David and Goliath battle we will see next year no matter who the Democratic candidate is. What could say more about the ideologies of the two American parties where one outwardly whores for corporate cash while the other appeals to the people who make up this democracy?
– Triumph of The Deananites, Oliver Willis, 30 June 2003
The individual numbers look awfully bad when you compare them to George Bush’s easy fundraising romps recently, but the Democratic total for the quarter is a fairly healthy $30 million. There’s no question that Bush and the Republican are going to outspend the Democrats by a lot, but even so, $30 million 16 months before the election isn’t bad.
– Democratic Fundraising, Kevin Drum, 3 July 2003
You get the point- I could go on all day cutting and pasting in similar quotations, but that would be boring. As I have noted before, there is a noticeable difference in the rhetoric when it pertains to Bush (and Republicans) than when it is dealing with the Democrats. When Bush raises cash, completely within the law, it is a sign that he is evil, and that he has been paid off by the rich. When the Democrats raise money, it is proof of their viability as a candidate, as this quote demonstrates:
Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor making his first bid for national office, raised substantially more money this quarter than all his more established opponents in the Democratic presidential contest, according to figures released today.
The result forced Dr. Dean’s rivals to reconsider how to deal with an opponent they had until now viewed as little more than an irritant.
Republicans raising money- evil corporate hacks set on ruining the earth. Democrats raising money – proof of a candidates vitality. Interesting.
At any rate, the whole party of the rich nonsense has been explored in detail before, and even the NY Times can’t hide it:
The public may be surprised to learn these results, but Democratic Party leaders are not. In getting behind the badly needed drive to end soft money as a device for buying candidates and favors, the Democrats knew they would have considerable catching up to do to broaden their base for the new campaign world of limited hard money. The one category the Democrats led in was among fat-cat donors, with the party garnering 92 percent of the contributions of $1 million or more in 2002, the last year soft money was permitted. No wonder Terry McAuliffe, the Democrats’ soft-money maestro, is emphasizing an urgent new direct-mail effort to enlist many more smaller donors.
Why are the Democrats in so much fund-raising trouble? The truth is they are not. According to the New York Times, the Democrats have raised 50+ million to date for their 9 candidates, while Bush has raised 34 million.. Once the Democrats unite, it is absurd to think that they will not have the unity to raise sufficient funds to adequately finance a campaign for their respective candidate. Not to mention, if there is any real damage to the DNC, it is self-inflicted- years of reliance on the now banned soft money has hurt their fund raising ability. The party of the people was bypassing the people, and taking too much money in soft donations- because it was easy. Cry me a river.
You might think that soft money donations are dead because of provisions in the clearly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill- but, alas, you are forgetting who we are dealing with on this issue. Remember, Democrats pass rules, other people are supposed to follow them. They have already worked quickly to find ways around the bill they demagogued for so long:
Democrats are kicking off a backdoor way of financing their 2004 congressional campaigns today with the very type of unlimited donations from corporations, unions, and individuals that many party leaders had vowed to flush from the political system.
The strategy involves setting up two new groups unmistakably aligned with the Democratic Party’s longstanding campaign organizations for the House and Senate. Technically, the two groups are not arms of the Democratic Party, a key distinction, because the nation’s new campaign finance law bars lawmakers from soliciting ”soft money,” the unlimited money that politicians still crave.
House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, and minority whip Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, will headline a fund-raising event tonight at the Hotel George for a new group called the New House PAC.
Tonight, the group will raise ”hard money,” a limited, regulated type of donation that lawmakers can legally solicit. But the group plans to ask donors for soft money later this year and to serve as a sort of shadow campaign committee for the Democratic Party, according to sources familiar with the effort.
– Democrats Initiate New ‘Soft Money’ Campaign, Washington Post, 7 May 2003
But the real reason we shouldn’t worry for an immediate decline of the Democrats is their unofficial help. There are more than a few ‘non-partisan’ groups who will toe the DNC line and spend every effort and every political dollar attacking the Bush administration. You may have heard of a few of them: the AFL-CIO, the NEA (who, we should note has had numerous suits filed against it for their clearly partisan use of funds), AFSCME, the Teamsters, the Sierra Club, NARAL, NOW, and many many others. In fact, go look at Open Secrets list of Big Money donors. You will notice a certain party dominates the top, and calling these groups non-partisan is to commit a gross crime against the English language.
Before I move on, let me remind you of my favorite nonpartisan group- the NAACP. Here is a nice, non-partisan statement from Julian Bond:
Republicans appeal “to the dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality,” NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said yesterday at the civil rights group’s 94th annual convention.
“They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division … their idea of reparations is to give war criminal Jefferson Davis a pardon,” Mr. Bond said during his welcoming remarks. “Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side.”
– Julian Bond sees GOP with ‘dark underside’, Washington Times, 14 July 2003
When not comparing the GOP to the Confederacy or making references to the Taliban, the NAACP has written, financed, and aired such charming ‘non-partisan’ commercials such as the following doozy equating President Bush’s (then Governor Bush) actions to the brutal murder of an African-American:
I
Matthew Yglesias
You make a good point, but I don’t think I should have been lumped in with those other guys. What I said about Bush was that he was likely to raise a great deal of money (which is true, and I take you don’t disagree) and so that it was important for the Democrats to find a way to counter that. I suggested John Kerry’s personal fortune. This George Soros plan seems just as good. You should consider, though, that Bush is going to out fundraise the Democratic nominee by significantly more than $75 million, so this won’t exactly level the playing field. But there’s nothing notably “evil” or whatever about the fact that the Republicans usually raise more money. Democrats are getting better at doing it, and we’ve traditionally gotten more volunteer manpower (unions, students, etc.) Anyway, this is just how the game is played. Folks need money to run campaigns.
David Perron
I agree that the paragraph quoted from Matthew doesn’t really reinforce your point, John. What I find utterly baffling is the other excerpts. Do Democrats really believe Bush has raised his money from only a dozen or so people, while their money is all contributions from the poor working class? It seems as if they do. Meanwhile, they cheer at large donations to the DNC as if all available irony has already been used up.
David Perron
Oh, and I almost forgot: great article, John.
Sean
I think you’re mostly right…the problem some are quick to see, as I just heard Howard Dean point out, is that Republicans are giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy, who are then writing checks to them (if you can afford a 2000 dollar check like those cleaned up by cheney the other weekend, i think you’re wealthy…maybe not super rich like soros, but quite comfortable). this is seen by democrats as corrupt, fee-for-service government. the uber-rich (who dont really need tax cuts) also profit from tax breaks, arguably even more than others, but if/when they attack repubs, like buffett and soros, it is seen as selfless and honorable, since they seem less likely to benefit from such a move. meanwhile dean himself is raking in huge numbers of small donations, regardless of what soros does…(as i commend the repubs for their small donations). all in all, i think you’ve got good points and some basis for an argument, but i think theres some counter-argument, which i’ve messily tried to present – and there are some distinctions. i’m sickened by lieberman shopping for 2000 dollar checks at california banquets, and by gore kneeling for money at a buddhist temple just as much as i am by businessmen in south carolina giving back a tiny amount of their tax break to the guys who delivered it to them.
Sean
i should clarify that i don’t necessarily think Soros (or even Buffet – but he’s made a more principled case in my mind, esp. re: the estate tax) is all that selfless and honorable, as posters on Kos and Yglesias’ boards have pointed out, IIRC. He just probably saw the money he made under Clinton, compared with the money he made during a bush recession, and decided that, even if he liked the republican capitalist goals, he preferred the democrats’ ways of getting there (or the moderate fiscally sane methods of a split gop/dem rule, with budget balancing and compromising). But for now, I’ll take his support on my side, even if I don’t really think much of his long term goals. I really wish Buffet would do more with his money than just accumulate it, considering the guy has written some great, principled attacks on the bush economic plan. ah well…ya take what you can get, if you’re a dem who’s locked out of gov’t right now.
Sean
one last disclaimer – i think our current system is real half-assed, and a no-limits system would be a lot more rational and simpler, but has a real potential for serious corruption that i’d rather not play with. so…if you’re asking me what _do_ i support, I’d probably take the stereotypical democratic route and answer more strict regulation with spending limits and public financing, something along the (stereotype agian) canadian model, from what i know of it…but campaign finance is such a messy issue, I don’t see any perfect solution.
wallster
Sean, you hit the nail on the head with the “fee for service government” line. Everyone in the higher tax brackets who donated to GWB in 2000 saw their investment returned in spades through tax cuts, and are are now willing to fork over another check. Unfortunately, the middle and lower classes cannot afford $2,000. The current system is no less fair than a poll tax.
I think we’d be better off with a much smaller limit, like $25. That would truly level the playing field between Soros, the $2,000 a plate crowd, and the cleaning lady.
Sean
wallster – agreed. 25 might be a bit low, maybe 100 or 250 or 500, with any more donations made at least partially tax-deductible in some form and put in a govt pool for public financing of other candidates.
Dodd
“Democrats raised as much or more than Republicans in 2002 only among the largest donors. Democrats attracted 92 percent of the money from the 23 donors who contributed at least $1 million…. By contrast, Republicans dominated among smaller and mid-sized donors. The GOP garnered 64 percent of the total contributions from those who gave less than $200 and 61 percent from those who donated between $200 and $999…. Sixty percent of the Democratic National Committee’s money came from soft money, whereas the Republican National Committee raised only 40 percent of its funds from soft money.”
Kimmitt
That was a tactical move on the Dems’ part — until recently, the process of going after 50- or 100-dollar donations was so excruciating that it was believed that relying heavily on some soft donors was easily the best way to spend one’s time. Of course, going after 500- or 1000-dollar donations has a much greater return per direct mailing/phone call, so Republicans, who appealed to a much larger set people who were perfectly capable of writing 500 dollar checks than Democrats, could spend their time that way.
That’s changed, to some extent, by the internet. Now that I can ask people to do the vast majority of the work themselves, just bopping over to the website and contributing as though buying a book on amazon.com, I get a lot reasonable return on my effort.
As for why soft money was banned when it was the Dems’ lifeblood — sometimes, not often, but sometimes, people do things because they’re the right thing to do even when it causes them difficulty.
Of course, these little dummy corporations set up to accept soft cash undo a lot of that good, but the “no organized party” principle can be applied here. The folks who came up with and advocated the dodge probably aren’t the folks who backed campaign finance reform in the first place.
“Trying to keep up” my sweet petunia. Republicans (and the RNC) have always enjoyed a significant fundraising advantage. This will continue to be true through most manifestations of campaign law; a Party devoted to (among other things) promoting the interests of the wealthy will always be able to find money.
Peter
Oddly, the posters writing about the tax cuts for the rich ignore the fact that the top income people got the smallest percentage of taxes cut.
Why let the truth get in the way of a good argument.
Sean
Peter,
huh? smallest percentage measured how? and what does that have to do with any of the posts above? was that some form response, or..
Matthew
I’ve got the OpenSecrets campaign data presented here in graphical form. I’ll be interested to see how this changes in the 2002-2004 fundraising cycle. I have a feeling that unions are just giving to Soros’ fund because they can’t give as much directly anymore, so this new lefty money effort isn’t, for the most part, new money. I ripped into Soros in the post John excerpted before the more left-wing blog commenters brought out his nasty history, but most of the liberal bloggers themselves who linked to the Soros fund story did so to praise him, not to bury him.
David Perron
Sean, you hit the nail on the head with the “fee for service government” line. Everyone in the higher tax brackets who donated to GWB in 2000 saw their investment returned in spades through tax cuts, and are are now willing to fork over another check. Unfortunately, the middle and lower classes cannot afford $2,000. The current system is no less fair than a poll tax.
Well, now that would be rather non-capitalist of them. I don’t think Bush is going to deliver another rate cut soon, do you? It’d make more sense for them to put the extra money into the bond market, no?
I think what Kimmitt’s talking about is altruism, except that usually altruists don’t make a point of bitching about the consequences of their actions quite so much.
Overall, I’d probably want to come armed with some data regarding who’s getting the lion’s share of the uber/super/ultra-rich donations. Given that none of us seem to have the goods, it doesn’t seem to be a smart move to make any grandiose claims in that regard. But if it floats your boat to make sweeping, unsupported claims, knock yourselves out.
triticale
The really ugly thing about the NAACP ad cited above, aside from the violation of their 501c status, is that it implied that Byrd’s killers went unpunished because of George W Bush. Fact of the matter is that two of them got the death penalty and the third got a life sentence, from largely white juries. The ad was deliberately deceitful.
Kalroy
I got money back from the tax-cut and I sweat for a living. Let’s see, earlier this year I was operating a jack-hammer and sawzall sweating like a pig.
I’m poor enough so that little $800 was pretty damn nice and we’ve made it go a long way.
Kal
Ryan Waxx
Kalroy:
You fithy rich pigs gloating over STEALING the money that rightfully belongs to the impovershed sickens me.
Right-wing fatcat lunatic.
Robert Speirs
So, let’s see. We’re supposed to give money to campaigns only if we don’t get anything for the money. Why would anyone do that? And what right has anyone got to tell anyone else what kind of advertising he can spend his money on? And what proof is there from anywhere that limiting political contributions leads to more truth and better government? Idiots.
barney gumble
“So, let’s see. We’re supposed to give money to campaigns only if we don’t get anything for the money. Why would anyone do that?”
So, how clear are you on the whole concept of ‘bribery’, Robert?
Tatterdemalian
Clear enough to tell the difference between “bribery” and “economics,” Barney.
If bribery was any instance where you pay money and get something in return, then every time you went to the store, you would be committing gross acts of bribery. (Not that some leftists don’t try to pretend they are the same thing…)
rabidfox
Let’s see, pay for service if a “rich” man supports a republican candidate but honest political action if the contribution comes from a labor union to support a democratic candidate. Or does anywone honestly think that the unions (and other democratice milch cows) really don’t expect anything from a democratic politician?
Oberon
Let’s allow unlimited campaign donations, but require that they all be made anonymously.
That would be amusing.
Kimmitt
I always kind of liked that idea, especially if there was a big pot that distributed the money every three months, so that aggregation would completely obliterate any possibility of knowledge of origin. But then I realized that even the tiniest modicum of trust would allow donors to successfully claim their donations and that the size of donations — in and of themselves — are probably protected speech.
But then, I’m against donation limits of any kind. I just want everything completely documented. If a candidate is running based exclusively on money raised at KKK gatherings, more power to him/her. The fourth branch of government can tease this information out, and the public will have the information it needs to make good decisions.
The Valiant Elephant
Perhaps Ryan Waxx could explain why someone else’s money belongs to today’s “impoverished”?
Ryan Waxx
Because the money was stolen from them in the first place, by the Republican party and George Bush.
The Valiant Elephant
“Because the money was stolen from them in the first place, by the Republican party and George Bush.”
So what you’re saying is that you are retarded.
Can you explain how it was stolen?
Go ‘head. Knock both of your brain cells toghether a few times. Give it try!