Posted on 10/05/2007 9:18:17 PM PDT by Doofer
Mitt Romney once said financing his own campaign would be a "nightmare." Writing checks, he said this week, is "painful." It doesn't seem to be stopping him. Romney is his presidential campaign's most generous supporter, lending $17.5 million from his personal fortune so far. His Republican rivals are bracing themselves for him to do it again. And again.
Romney is hardly the first presidential candidate to cut himself a check — Steve Forbes and Ross Perot spent far more than he has. But the businessman-turned-politician, who can raise money AND open his wallet, may have the best chance to win the presidency.
The former Massachusetts governor has two more shots at testing what his money can do to supplement his campaign's finances and help him win the GOP nomination. The first is during the 90 days left before the early presidential contests of Iowa and New Hampshire. If he survives those, he can spend again in the last weeks of January before the make-or-break primaries in Florida, New York, California, New Jersey.
"The Romney strategy is very clear — win Iowa, get a bounce to New Hampshire, win New Hampshire and write yourself a check for the Feb. 5 states and start advertising," said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican strategist who has worked on presidential campaigns but is unaffiliated this election.
If Romney writes himself a sizable check in January, his spending might be evident, but the size of his contribution would not be a public record until mid-February, well after the nomination is likely to be sewn up. That could protect Romney from voters who would object to a candidate "buying" the nomination.
But Jennifer A. Steen, a political scientist at Boston College who has written extensively on self-financed candidates, believes the public doesn't care if a wealthy candidate writes his campaign checks.
"What I've noticed is that it has been terribly frustrating for opponents of self-financers that their own outrage at self-financing is not shared by the voters," Steen said
Compared to candidates like Forbes and Perot, Romney is a piker. Perot pumped $63 million into his failed 1992 presidential contest. Forbes contributed about $38 million in each of his unsuccessful White House bids, in 1996 and 2000.
Unlike those millionaires, Romney entered the presidential race with a political pedigree.
He had run for the Senate against Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and had been elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002.
Overall, Romney has receipts of about $62 million, with $45 million raised from about 100,000 donors this year. That means he has dipped into his pocket for 28 percent of his total. In his 2002 gubernatorial campaign he had $9.4 million in receipts, of which $6.3 million came from him.
This year, Romney's personal contributions have been increasing as his fundraising has been declining. In the first quarter, he lent his campaign $2 million. In the next three months, he put in $6.85 million. This summer, he contributed $8.5 million. Meanwhile, his donations dropped from $21 million in the first three months to $10 million this past quarter.
Advisers say he is prepared to give to his campaign as long as it seems reasonable he can win.
Romney faces no great personal risk in supporting his candidacy. His assets are estimated at between $190 million and $250 million — or, as he has described it, "a bloomin' fortune."
Last week, while campaigning in California, Romney said supporting his own candidacy keeps him free of special interest influences.
"My family, that's the only one I'm really beholden to," he said wryly. "They're the ones who let their inheritance slip away, dollar by dollar."
In an interview with The Associated Press last month, he said he had placed a limit on how much he would be willing to spend, but he wouldn't disclose it. "My wife isn't telling!" he joked.
After nine months of campaigning, Romney's campaign reported this week that he had $9 million cash on hand. That's less than his rival Rudy Giuliani, who has $12 million in the bank for the primary contests. But it is more than other GOP contenders.
Strategists and advisers for various campaigns say they are watching Romney's money closely and trying to divine if and when he plans to spend more.
"All of his money reaches a point of diminishing returns at some point if everyone has enough money to run a good campaign in the last two or three weeks" before the January contests," said Charlie Black, an adviser to Republican John McCain. "His money advantage happened early in the year and now. He can be out there advertising in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina before other people could afford to."
Indeed, Romney has spent nearly $10 million in radio and television advertising since early in the year, building up his name recognition both nationally and in those early states. In national polls, he still lags behind other leading Republicans. But he went from being an unknown to leading the polls in Iowa. In New Hampshire, where he is far more familiar as the governor of a neighboring state, he is in a close contest with Giuliani.
"Romney has had to spend and do more to get to where he is now," said GOP strategist Greg Mueller, who advised Forbes' 2000 campaign. "One of the challenges for Romney is how do they keep it fresh. Money can help you do that."
As the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary draw nearer, television markets in the two states will become saturated. Candidates will be competing against Christmas ads, and advertising time will get booked up.
"It's not easy to get access to the airwaves, even if you seem to have the ability to drop a significant chunk of resources at one time," said Eric Ueland, a former top aide to Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist and now a supporter of Fred Thompson's presidential campaign.
Ueland, stressing that he was not speaking for Thompson's campaign, said candidates facing a self-financed opponent like Romney need to be prepared to respond.
"If you know that a hurricane could bear down on you, then you make sure your structure is as strong as possible," he said.
At least Romney is investing in himself. Unlike Soros who has an even bigger fortune that he’s investing in all manner of left wing organizations that seem to have one objective: to smear Republicans. Does AP write about that ?
Not true--if he wins in two or three states and expects that to carry him to the nomination, why is he consistently behind in the polls?
The man is running a very crisp campaign. He’s a brilliant guy.
"Crisp"? How does one spend all those millions and stay stuck in 3rd or 4th place and be considered brilliant?
Exactly--he will have demolished the candidates who could win against Hillary and will be very pleased with himself for buying a nomination, but for the general election he will have demoralized just enough of those he needs to win.
Romney made his money the old fashioned way, he earned it.
If he has the money to spend on his own campaign to supplement that of donors, then that makes him a more competitive general election candidate. Especially, as he hasn't exactly been a slouch at getting money from donors as well.
“If he has the money to spend on his own campaign to supplement that of donors, then that makes him a more competitive general election candidate. Especially, as he hasn’t exactly been a slouch at getting money from donors as well.”
That is sterile thinking, if Mitt succeeded in slicking his way through, he would not find a large number of votes on the other side, that is what is being learned in this primary.
Conservative apathy means not only losing the White House, but low turnout would hurt all the way down the ticket.
The primary is to weed out the chafe until we get a vote getting winner, that can turn out the party for the entire ticket during the election.
A man that has to buy a primary, doesn’t have the hard earned, passionate support to motivate the party voters to turn out in eager droves in the election.
A man that cannot get his own party excited will not defeat the darling of the left, our first women President.
This is why I am giving money to both F. Thompson, and Guiliani (Shudder)..
It may be the ONLY way to block him!
“....with $45 million raised from about 100,000 donors this year
Very impressive.”
Somehow Obama has had 350K donors. Hillary had 100K this quarter.
I can’t imagine who all these people are.
OR Fred Thompson relies on a lot of volunteer grass-roots supporters, that which he actually has, Mitt seems to lack except in IOWA an NH...
Ansell’s chart is very compelling and what you say about Romney’s lack of national traction is true, so far. But things could change fast if Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire. I wouldn’t write Romney off just because his national poll numbers so far don’t look all that great.
I think the race is going to come down to Romney vs. Thompson, and though I do believe Thompson will win, still, it could end up being a tight race.
As for the G-man, I think he’s going to fade. The others aren’t even contenders.
Sure, nothing is written in stone (remeber when Howard Dean’s nomination was a done deal?). But I see no evidence of Giuliani fading—only of conservatives WISHING he would.
Giuliani’s poll numbers have sagged since the start of this race... they’re certainly not growing. I don’t know if that’s evidence of anything.
Anyway, I’m not citing evidence. I’m just making a personal prediction that Giuliani will fade fast, after South Carolina.
I predict that sometime in the first two months of ‘08, the race is going to come down to Romney vs. Thompson. I could be wrong. That’s just my prediction.
I just don’t see Giuliani having anywhere to go but down. He has zero support among conservatives and no chance of getting any.
Romney’s support from that group is also very low, but I believe he does have a chance of winning enough conservatives to his side to be competitive against Thompson.
Giuliani has no chance of that.
Folks, think,
The base does not win. The middle wins. And far more broadly in the array of truth . . . money wins. If you look back at the 2004 election you will see that the “base” did not carry Dean to the nomination. Kerry would not have been the nominee had he not provided money to his own campaign from mortgaging his house. Dean’s money advantage would have crushed him had he not had a huge influx of discretionary money, run the necessary ads in Iowa, and won there.
Dean then lost in New Hampshire and his money dried up and it is popular to talk and think about The Scream, but that scream occurred because he lost in Iowa, and he lost because Kerry had money and persuaded non political, non extreme, non base Democrats he was the man who could beat Bush.
The other concept to keep in mind is that it is very likely in a 3 man race that the GOP nomination can be won by a candidate who does not outright win a single state. The nomination is won by securing delegates. A consistent 2nd place finish can gather more delegates than the other two candidates who might bounce between 1st and 3rd.
And, of course, if you finish 1st in New Hampshire, Iowa AND MICHIGAN, your momentum is pretty powerful even if you do finish 2nd in all the southern states. New York and California primaries occur pretty early next year and they are not southern states.
“There is no mistake about victory. If the strategy wins, it wins. If it gathers the non political junkies via TV, then he is victorious.The man is running a very crisp campaign. He’s a brilliant guy.”
He may be brilliant. But that does not mean he will win. After what I heard Rush report yesterday about the socialist type health care in Mass, Romney sure does not sound so good! Wish I could link to the article, but would have to listen to yesterday’s program again to catch the title of the article Rush read. Maybe someone else has the link or remembers where the article came from.
I do not know what you heard or saw, and I don’t know what the norm is in Massachussetts, but I will say this.
The “norm” on FR is very likely to be health care group insurance plans through their employer.
THAT is not “the norm” nationally anymore and incrementally it will become less so the norm on FR.
Only when you move into the world of individual health care insurance plans can you understand this issue. That means self employed. That means small business with no group plan.
The premiums for individual plans for a family are headed for $10,000/yr. That does not include deductible and co pays. And it is growing at double digit % growth rates.
Iraq victory is going to be the primary issue next year, but we Republicans had better get VERY ATTUNED to a specific reality and that is . . . if the war is “over” with troops coming home to victory parades . . . then ONE WEEK later the primary issue of the campaign will become health care costs.
The President’s State of the Union plan of tax credits/deductions is a conservative approach to addressing these costs. The $10,000 in question (assuming you can even get insurance (pre existing conditions often preclude it)) is, after all, after tax dollars.
The problem conservatism has is that there is GREAT DANGER in health insurance being perceived as a Democrat issue. If it is, we will lose the election, because it will be a more dominant concern of the moderate voter next year than illegal immigration.
Overall, I think the Romney campaign can feel okay about the way this quarter's fundraising numbers shook out. Granted, everyone in the GOP is concerned that their candidates are getting lapped by the Democratic field. But, among Republicans, Romney was probably close enough to Giuliani to call it a wash (nearly $10 million to around $11 million)....
Had Romney not gotten so close to Rudy in contributions from people not named Mitt Romney, I think the Giuliani people could have begun to argue that their opponent's campaign was only being sustained by his own bank account. But, as it stands, Romney can argue that he's doing everything Giuliani is, fundraising-wise, plus going the additional step of making an "investment" of his own.
Romney's Adequate Fundraising Haul
Excellent review of things.
There is no such thing as "the middle." It is a fabricated term pushed by the Dems and media to force the GOP move to the Left.
Really? I seem to recall declarations by Republicans after the 2004 . . . “we are the middle. Join us there.”
Hard to join folks somewhere that doesn’t exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.