I thought the little guys gave to the Democrats, and the Fat Cats gave to the Republicans. Live and learn!
The Scramble for Hard Money
New York Times Editorial
As President Bush's drive for re-election cash jangles across the land like a platinum-plated juggernaut, the Democrats can only envy the Republicans' longstanding edge in organizing donors. For years, the G.O.P. invested more heavily than the Democrats in the direct-mail, small-donor techniques of raising cash. The latest tallies from last year's Congressional elections show this Republican advantage paying off handsomely, perchance temporarily, now that the era of unlimited "soft money" donations from corporations, unions and individuals has been ended by the McCain-Feingold law. With its superior donor base, the G.O.P. attracted almost 50 percent more contributors than the Democrats and showed a commanding edge among lower-budget donors who gave less than $200 apiece. Sixty-four percent of them gave to the Republicans, versus 35 percent for the supposed party of the people, according to a detailed study by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group.
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.
Clearly, Democratic leaders face a challenging period of adjustment. Donor bases are not built overnight. And in hard-cash politics, virtue is rarely its own reward. But the new money tallies show that the Democrats have no choice but to labor back from their disadvantage. The sad reality is that election costs jumped by nearly a third in just four years, to $2.2 billion. And Congressional candidates who outspent opponents won a stunning 94 percent of the time, usually via 10-to-1 edges in financing.
nytimes.com |
