GOP The Party For Fat Cats??? Think Again! ;)

[southerngale]

This is an article from the July 3, 2003 issue of Investor's Business Daily so it is not from a Republican or Democrat publication. Make sure you read the whole thing....it's very interesting.


-------------------------------


Last year's McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform was expected to help Democrats and hurt Republicans. But the big winners so far are Republicans.

At every level, the GOP is outpacing, sometimes crushing, the Democrats. That's upending the conventional wisdom that the GOP is the party for "fat cats."

The Republican National Committee has raised $54.8 million in 2003. The Democratic National Committee has gotten $18.4 million.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee also beat the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, $14 million to $10.6 million. The GOP is widely expected to be ahead in House races, too, when the numbers come out.

"It's a challenge, there's no question," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe at a recent fund-raiser.

To be sure, Republicans benefit from controlling the House, Senate and White House. But McCain-Feingold gives the GOP a big fund-raising edge.

Ironically, Democrats pushed - and most Republicans fought - campaign finance reform for years. But McCain-Feingold has cut off some of the Democrats' best funding sources while opening up GOP sources even wider.

GOP's Hard (Money) Ball

The law banned soft money - unregulated donations to political action committees or to parties for "party building."

It also hiked the limit on hard money - donations to candidates or parties for straight electioneering - to $2,000. In many cases, the actual limit is $4,000 because donors can give twice, for primaries and general elections.

The reform was supposed to hurt Republicans, thought to depend on soft money. Democrats were supposed to benefit from a wider activist base giving hard money.

Few strategists, apparently, did the math.

"Contrary to the popular belief that (Republicans) raise their money from rich fat cats, their real strength is in small donors," said Steven Weiss of the Center for Responsive Politics.

It's the Democrats who have come to rely on wealthy donors. They raised 53% of their funds from soft money in 2001-02 vs. 38% of the GOP's funds.

That's based on the center's study of 1.4 million donations of $200 or more in the last election.

People who gave $1 million or more gave 92% to Democrats. And people giving more than $100,000 were twice as likely to give to Democrats. But only a few hundred donors give that much.

The top Democratic donors were lawyers or in entertainment and real estate. They mostly gave in soft money, which is now illegal.

At every level below $100,000, the GOP led. And the further down the list, the better they did.

They hold an almost 2-1 advantage among donors who give $1,000 or less, and there are hundreds of thousands of such donors.

The government also matches the first $250 of a donor's gift in a presidential primary.

The top Republican donor group is retirees, who give hard money. The real estate industry and securities and investment firms were second and third.

These trends have been "fairly consistent" in recent years, says Weiss. But it has been largely unnoticed until now. Now it may give the GOP a huge advantage.

"In a system where soft money is banned, Democrats can no longer rely on those large donors the way they used to," Weiss said.

Republicans are working at boosting their hard money edge.

"Since McCain-Feingold, we've redoubled our efforts at cultivating those donors," said Carl Forti, an NRCC spokesman.

Democrats Adapting

Democrats aren't sitting still. They're urging donors to write more checks to individual candidates. The DNC plans to build a direct mail list of 700,000 donors.

"Plus, the Democrats still have unions to get out the vote," Weiss said. "They put in an effort that no one can put a price tag on."

Those who have adapted are doing well.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean raised $7.5 million in the second quarter, topping all party rivals for the presidential nomination. He did it with small donors. According to his campaign, the average donation was $66.85.

President Bush raised at least $34 million in the same period.

McCain-Feingold has been challenged in court. Earlier this year, a federal appeals court struck down some parts of the law, but stayed its ruling until the Supreme Court hears the case.

So Republicans remain cautious.

"There were valid reasons that many Republicans were opposed McCain-Feingold - and those still stand," Forti said. "That we're doing better right now doesn't really have anything to do with it."

[streetsoldier]

That's so very true, southerngale!

By all socioeconomic factors, I should be sitting squarely in the Democratic camp (disabled, low income, no medical/dental insurance, etc.), yet...I do not share the idea of "entitlements", or welcome MORE Governmental intervention in private citizen's lives, which places me slightly "right-of-center", I guess.

I will not sell my liberty to "buy" personal security at the cost of that liberty, for me or anyone else. In sum, my pocketbook does not supersede my principles.

[JetMaxx]

I'm certainly not wealthy (other than EDS, I've never made more than $8.00 an hour in my life), and always support the most conservative party...which is always the Republicans.

To me....supporting a political party has NOTHING to do with my income. What principles do they stand for, and do they more closely represent my beliefs on issues important to me (crime & punishment; gun control; abortion; taxes; belief in God/ family values; etc).

I'm very conservative, and have been since childhood; the Republican party is much, much closer to my core beliefs than the DNC....and have been for a very long time.