ANDRES: Money swears

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By Gary Andres

OP-ED:

A Republican activist I know had to mute his television while watching the Washington Redskins game last weekend. The constant barrage of Barack Obama advertising only intensified his growing depression. "It's like a bad '80s song," he told me. "I can't get the tune out of my head." Hitting the mute button wouldn't stop this Republican's gloomy political music, but all those so-called reformers concerned about money in elections aren't singing a lot these days either.

The Washington Post reported last weekend that the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party spent $105 million in the first two weeks of October. The Illinois senator's campaign alone doled out $82 million during that period for paid media - more than four times what Sen. John McCain spent during that same period, and half as much as Sen. John Kerry invested in television for his entire campaign in 2004. That kind of largess spurred other unprecedented moves, like last night's 30-minute network ad buys.

The tectonic plates of political money have shifted in the past several years, creating new opportunities for Democrats and dangerous sinkholes for Republicans. Democrats' newfound fundraising capacity and aptitude has changed the electoral landscape and helps explain not only Mr. Obama's success, but the resurgent strength of his party at the congressional level. But no one who used to say, "money corrupts" seems to care anymore.

For most of the post-World War II period, Republicans excelled on the money side of the equation. Democrats offset their financial deficit by mobilizing a strong ground game, getting help from labor unions and other liberal activists with get-out-the-vote efforts.

Both parties also raise money for various campaign entities, such as the Democratic and Republican National Committees, as well as their respective House and Senate campaign committees aimed at electing congressional candidates.

Ten years ago in the 1998 cycle, both the House GOP campaign arm, the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) and its Senate counterpart, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), buried their Democratic competitors - the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) - in the money chase. The NRCC collected nearly $43 million that cycle, compared to only $15 million for the DCCC. On the Senate side, the NRSC raised over $37 million. The DSCC collected only about half that amount (around $19 million).

In his new book, "Unequal Democracy," Princeton University political scientist Larry Bartels quantifies the electoral advantage of the past Republican money advantage. Mr. Bartels estimates that between 1952-2004, the GOP's extra spending added an average of 3.5 percent to their popular vote total each year.

Today we see a reversal of political fortune. Democrats have not only turned around their financial disadvantage - they actually lead now in fundraising among most of these partisan committees and certainly at the presidential campaign level. And if Mr. Bartels is right, more money means more votes. In the most recent data filed at the FEC, the DCCC has outraised the NRCC this cycle by $20 million, while the DSCC has collected about $35 million more than the NRSC. The RNC still outpaces the DNC, but the combined Democratic Party numbers are daunting. Considering that Mr. Obama has raised over $600 million to this point - and that the combined Democratic Party efforts now top $350 million - he and his party combined will raise and spend an unprecedented $1 billion in the election.

Yet Mr. Obama's newfound war chest has not been met with a chorus of complaints charging Democrats with trying to "buy the White House." As former Federal Election Chairman Brad Smith noted last Sunday in The Washington Post, Mr. Obama likes to emphasize his contributions from small donors, but he's also going to raise twice as much from $1,000 or more donors than any candidate in history.

Mr. Smith writes that Democrats and so-called "reformers" have always complained when Republicans held a fundraising advantage: "Where are they now?" The same newspaper reported this week Mr. Obama received over $100 million in September alone in online contributions. One donor gave $174, 800. The legal limit is $2,300 for the general election. Imagine the outrage among so-called reformers if a Republican presidential candidate engaged in these practices. It suggests their real concerns are rooted in politics.

After this election, Republicans should stop worrying about getting pummeled by television ads and figure out how never to get outspent like this again. But get prepared for the reformers to wake from their sleep and yell foul.

Gary Andres is vice chairman of Dutko Worldwide.