Democrats Go to Bat With 2 Strikes
Bush Fundraising, Loss of Soft Money Hurt Party for '04
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 12, 2003; Page A04
URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44146-2003Jan11.html
Democratic presidential candidates and party officials gearing up for the 2004 election face two daunting facts:
First, the sustained two-year effort by the party's national, senatorial and congressional campaign committees to strengthen "hard money" fundraising did not succeed in lessening their dependence on "soft money," which no longer is legal. Instead, the Democratic committees in the 2002 elections were even more dependent on soft money -- which national parties could raise in unlimited amounts until two months ago -- than in previous elections.
Second, President Bush's unprecedented fundraising success, a prowess that many Republicans expect Bush to far exceed next year. New calculations by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) provide stark evidence of Bush's golden touch in the 2000 election cycle -- he received 59,279 donations of $1,000 each, more than triple the number of any other presidential candidate. Al Gore finished second, with 19,298 $1,000 donors.
"Bush changed the parameters of presidential campaigns," said CFI executive director Michael J. Malbin. The high probability that Bush in 2004 will substantially improve on his success -- with the maximum hard-money contribution now raised to $2,000 -- "changes the calculus for any Democrat," Malbin said.
Meanwhile, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to suffer from the recent ban on soft-money fundraising by the national parties. The law will force the national Democratic and Republican organizations to raise hard money exclusively, a GOP strong suit and Democratic disappointment.
In the 2002 election cycle, the Democratic Party's three main campaign committees invested in expanding their direct-mail base, a key source of hard money, with modest success.
The soft-money ban could prove particularly burdensome for the candidate who wins the party's 2004 presidential nomination. Most candidates for the nomination appear likely to accept partial public financing, which will obligate them to limit their total spending before the late July nominating convention to about $44 million each. The eventual Democratic nominee may be forced to spend most, if not all, of the $44 million by mid-March, creating a four-month window with little or no cash to sustain the campaign. A new batch of federal funding becomes available after the party convention.
In the past, the national parties, armed with soft money, could help pick up the slack in the spring and the summer by buying television time and hiring much of the presidential campaign staff. Without soft money, that will be much tougher.
Bush, in contrast, is expected to have more than enough privately raised money to enable him to reject public financing -- and the limits that go with it -- during the preconvention campaign. That's what he did in 2000, when he raised $101 million during the primaries. Now, with the higher hard-money contribution limits and the power of incumbency, he should be able to double that to $200 million-plus, Democrats and Republicans agree.
Some Democrats, including possible candidate Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), are considering rejection of public financing to try to compete with Bush in raising private donations with no spending limits.
But there are widespread doubts whether there are enough $2,000 contributors in the Democratic donor base to enable many of the possible contenders to surpass the $44 million that each could spend in the primaries under the public finance rules.
With the possible exception of Lieberman, who may be able to draw large numbers of new Jewish donors, "none of the rest of the field has a constituency with deep enough pockets to go the private route," one political operative said.
Hard money refers to the limited individual contributions for candidate-regulated money. "Soft money" was unlimited contributions to the parties by unions, businesses and wealthy individuals.
The importance of soft money to the Democrats is reflected in the 2002 election fundraising figures for the key campaign committees of both parties. With soft money included, the Republican advantage over Democrats was 1.5 to 1. Without soft money, the GOP advantage would have been better than 2 to 1.
Bush demonstrated in 2000 the ability to assemble a network of more than 200 "pioneers," men and women who raised at least $100,000 by gathering scores of checks for $1,000 or less. He was aided by his strong ties to corporate executives, trade association chiefs and others who have ready-made constituencies of executives and members able and willing to give $1,000 to $2,000.
Malbin noted the difficulty facing any Democrat considering such a move. If a candidate were to collect one $2,000 donation every hour of every day in 2003, the total would be $17.5 million, less than a fifth of what Bush raised in 2000. To reach $44 million -- the maximum available from public financing -- a candidate would have to raise 2.5 contributions of $2,000 every hour for 365 days.
With the 2004 election approaching, many Democrats who had been unwilling to speak critically about the partisan consequences of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law are now talking publicly.
"There is no doubt we have financially disadvantaged ourselves," said James Jordan, outgoing director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). "There is no doubt that, as a party committee, we will be at a significant disadvantage."
After the 2002 elections, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the DSCC chairwoman, boasted that the committee broke all records raising "a remarkable $158.2 million." About two-thirds of this money, $104 million, was raised from soft money -- the large union, corporate and individual donations now prohibited.
Howard Wolfson, former director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said, "we have a smaller pie and we are getting a larger chunk taken out of it" by the new law.
Michael Meehan, senior counselor to the Democratic National Committee and close adviser to Senate Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), said: "The Republicans now control the three major political institutions [House, Senate and White House]. They will be able to cash in on the hard-money advantage they have traditionally enjoyed over the Democrats. The Republicans have 2.5 times the number of the maxed-out, $1,000 presidential donors. When the 2003 New Year's bell rings, they can double their contributions to $2,000."
"It's ironic," Meehan said, "that Democrats provided the bulk of the leadership and 90 percent of the votes" to pass the McCain-Feingold law last year. "And in the early stages of the new law, the Republican Party's fund-raising advantage will balloon."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company |
