Skip to comments.
With new law, GOP routs Democrats in fundraising
USA Today ^
| 8/21/2003
| Jim Drinkard
Posted on 08/21/2003 7:21:35 AM PDT by ZGuy
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:04 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; cfr; demzilla; dnc; fundraising; georgeallen; gop; gwb2004; mccainfeingold; pelosi; rnc
1
posted on
08/21/2003 7:21:36 AM PDT
by
ZGuy
To: ZGuy
That task is proving easier for the Republicans because they have a much larger base of small donors, built up over the decades they were out of power in Washington. Democrats, on the other hand, had become more reliant on the now-banned big donations, which they reaped from labor unions and Hollywood liberals. Gosh, that seems like quite a disconnect considering the Dims are the party of the people. LOL
the GOP has built a better than 2-to-1 advantage. When the Democrats' debt is taken into account, the gap grows to 4-to-1.
:-D [slapping thigh]
2
posted on
08/21/2003 7:30:05 AM PDT
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: eureka!; GraniteStateConservative; Pubbie; deport; PhiKapMom; LdSentinal; AuH2ORepublican
No real surprises here, but an informative article here that provides a few good laughs.
3
posted on
08/21/2003 7:35:40 AM PDT
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: Jonathon Spectre
"We used to send everybody an appeal about Social Security, and young people would take it and throw it in the trash," McAuliffe says.Hey Terry, maybe they read it first and realized they were just being robbed!
To: ZGuy
How freaking Ironic... Man is this funny. Democrats cut off their own nose to spite their face...
5
posted on
08/21/2003 7:39:07 AM PDT
by
smith288
('This time I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton.' - Uday Hussein)
To: Coop
Why don't parties just organize mega-fundraisers for all House candidates in potentially competitive races? Let's say we have 200 of those races---since a person can give $2,000 to each candidate, that means that a single person could pay $400,000 for a single fundraiser and it would all be hard money. Right?
6
posted on
08/21/2003 7:51:35 AM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: AuH2ORepublican
that means that a single person could pay $400,000 for a single fundraiser and it would all be hard money. Right? Sounds good. Write the first check! :-)
7
posted on
08/21/2003 7:56:56 AM PDT
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: Coop
Yep. And a good reminder that I need to send some more $$ to W and the RNC....
8
posted on
08/21/2003 8:03:53 AM PDT
by
eureka!
(Rats and Presstitutes lie--they have to in order to survive.....)
To: ZGuy
McAuliffe acknowledges the irony that the new law was pushed primarily by Democrats seeking to rid the system of big money. "This law did not turn out at all the way people had anticipated," he says.
No Mr. McAuliffe it didn't turn out the way you thought it would. That's what happens when you are not in touch with reality.
9
posted on
08/21/2003 8:05:51 AM PDT
by
taxcontrol
(People are entitled to their opinion - no matter how wrong it is.)
To: taxcontrol
McAuliffe actually believed his propaganda about the Republicans being funded by billionaires dropping off duffle bags of money from their Rolls Royces while the Dems were funded by widows and orphans sending in dimes they got from recycling cans. He should have talked to his accountants before pushing the CFR law.

Hah-hah!
10
posted on
08/21/2003 8:20:16 AM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(A flash mob of one.)
To: AuH2ORepublican
Why don't parties just organize mega-fundraisers for all House candidates in potentially competitive races? I've thought the same thing, but you have two problems, one on the donor side (why should I give to this candidate?) and one on the candidate side (oh gee, he's getting all this out-of-state money, he doesn't care about local folks). But I still think it can be worked, maybe regionally.
11
posted on
08/21/2003 8:22:09 AM PDT
by
JohnnyZ
(I don't know but I been told - Eskimo ***** is mighty cold - Tastes good - Mm good)
To: ZGuy
"It's going to be a financial wipeout in 2004," says Michael Meehan, political director for the nation's leading abortion-rights organization, NARAL Pro-Choice America. It could be several years before the party recovers, he says. What an idiot. The 'RATS are going to get further an further behind each election cycle. There's no way in hell they will be able to catch up with the "campaign finance" laws the way they are now. It's really fun to watch them drink their own Koolaid after they mixed it themselves.
12
posted on
08/21/2003 8:23:39 AM PDT
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: ZGuy
" But McAuliffe says he's confident his party will be competitive next year. One reason: a newly created national database of 158 million names, dubbed "Demzilla," that is being mined for new donors. Demzilla sounds like a loser. Mailing doesn't help if you have no message to mail.
13
posted on
08/21/2003 8:34:42 AM PDT
by
Mike Darancette
(Save Traditional Marriage -- It's for the Children!)
To: JohnnyZ
"have two problems, one on the donor side (why should I give to this candidate?) and one on the candidate side (oh gee, he's getting all this out-of-state money, he doesn't care about local folks)"
The first problem isn't insurmountable, since you would target the people that used to write six-figure soft money checks to the RNC, which would then spend it in the races they saw fit. If the RNC tells them that these are the races the GOP needs to finance, I think the big cats would be willing to pony up the money to challengers they've never heard off in states far from their's. The second problem is potentially more problematic, but if we're comparing a candidate who (i) raises $100,000 in-state but $0 out-of-state because he only raises money locally, with one who (ii) raises $200,000 in-state and $800,000 out-of-state by combining local fundraising with national mega-fundraising, I'd rather be the second candidate.
But maybe there's something else we're not thinking of. Are there special rules for joint fundraisers that would make such a scheme unworkable, such as accounting of expenses or prohibitions of having more than X candidates raise hard money at one event? I don't know, it sounds like this is something that the parties would do a lot of, and I don't think I've ever heard of this being tried.
14
posted on
08/21/2003 8:47:48 AM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: ZGuy
That task is proving easier for the Republicans because they have a much larger base of small donors, built up over the decades they were out of power in Washington
I have a different theory. The Democrat/Liberal philosophy runs contrary to the notion of funding a movement through individual efforts. That's why what they REALLY want is federally funded campaigns. Their constituency has been brainwashed into the philosopy of reliance on the government, so why their middle-class constituency willingly donate their hard-earned money to a cause (if they needed the money so badly, they should pass a law and tax them, then it'd be okay).
Conversely, the individual freedoms and efforts emphasized by the GOP/Conservative constituency makes them more likely to donate to their cause. Once again, the Dems have shot themselves in the foot with this one!
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson