So Much For That Whole Republican Cash Advantage Thing

by Todd Beeton, Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:53:38 AM EDT

On the heels of the stunning fundraising feats of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, two of the top tier Republican candidates have quietly released some not so good news regarding their Q2 fundraising. Turns out Mitt Romney was only able to raise $14 million last quarter (down 1/3 from his first quarter take and had to transfer $6.5 million of his own money to his campaign to cover advertising costs) and John McCain took in $11.2 million (which is actually close to his first quarter total but fiscal mis-management has left him with a cash on hand balance of just $2 million.) Now, while Giuliani has not released his Q2 total yet, let's assume that it falls somewhere between Romney and McCain as his Q1 take did and we get a total of around $38 million for the quarter among the top three contenders for the GOP nomination. As for Democrats, the top 3 raised $68.5 million, more than 1 and a half times that of the Republicans.

While celebrating candidates' fundraising heft is considered obscene by some, the fact is that fundraising has actually become a method by which voters can demonstrate their support before going to the polls. These figures (as well as the number of individual donors) are notable because they represent nothing less than a tangible measure of the enthusiasm for the Democratic candidates that far exceeds the enthusiasm for the Republican candidates.

A similar dynamic is playing out over at the congressional campaign committees. The NY Times Caucus blog is reporting some encouraging numbers that have been a bit off the radar:

In May, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $4.36 million and had $14.26 million in its bank account, according to a June 20 filing with the Federal Election Commission. In that same period, the National Republican Senatorial Committee raised $3.32 million and had $4.26 million cash on hand.
On the House side, the Democratic committee raised $4.52 million and had $11.53 million in the bank. The Republican committee also raised $4.52 million, but reported having a cash balance of $1.83 million.

Not only are Democrats either matching or exceeding the fundraising totals of the Republicans at the campaign committee level, but look at those cash on hand numbers. What the hell are the Republicans spending their money on this early? Oh yeah, crap like this.

Update [2007-7-3 16:32:11 by Todd Beeton]: Giuliani reports $17 million for Q2.

Tags: Democrats, Fundraising, Republicans (all tags)

Comments

14 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: So Much For That Whole Republican Cash Advanta

Looks like Giuliani's at $17 million. Interesting that he got more than Romney this quarter--maybe he's not fading after all

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-03 11:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: So Much For That Whole Republican Cash Advanta

He's certainly in the best shape. $14M in primary funds this quarter, no debt, and about $18M CoH (although some of that is general election money).

It also means that Good Ol' Fred really only has to raise $10-12 million to be competitive with these clowns.

by rashomon 2007-07-03 12:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: So Much For That Whole Republican Cash Advanta

The main thing Mitt has going for him is that he's in the lead in both Iowa and New Hampshire and has the straw poll locked up. This has been very useful advertising. Otherwise he'd be an also ran back with the Duncan Hunters and Sam Brownbacks of the GOP world.

Rudy did not have the cash to compete with Romney in Iowa to date. He's way behind in organization and the presumption is that he's half dead as a candidate and that Mitt and Fred have the race to themselves. OTOH, John Kerry organized early in Iowa. These are not similar campaigns in my book.

by David Kowalski 2007-07-03 02:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: So Much For That Whole Republican Cash Advanta

Giuliani's fade won't show up in fundraising until it's past the point of no return. The Republicans he alienates aren't the corporate faction which provides the money, it's the social conservatives who provide the (jack)boots on the ground who have issues with him.

by Englishlefty 2007-07-03 03:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: So Much For That Whole Republican Cash Advanta

The campaign cash numbers are not complete when the RNC/DNC numbers aren't included. When the totals of the national, senatorial and representative committees are added together, there is much more parity than illustrated above. H

by csstraw2 2007-07-03 12:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: So Much For That Whole Republican Cash Advanta

While it fundrasing is tangible and quantifiable, it also might be irrelevant. John Kerry was behind in the polls and behind in fundraising until he took out a 6 million dollar loan on his house to push hard in Iowa at the last minute and won it.

At this point in the 1992 primaries, Bill Clinton was behind in the polls and in fundraising too.

It's way early to consider these numbers to mean anything other than the obvious -- that these candidates have talked people into giving them an awful lot of money.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-03 12:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: So Much For That Whole Republican Cash Advanta

The difference is that there appears to be higher interest and that this time round there are very definitely high profile candidates this time round.

by Englishlefty 2007-07-03 03:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: So Much For That Whole Republican Cash Advanta

Todd, while I agree that the numbers raised are great, I think COH is an outdated notion as an investment that can beat the amount that banked money draws in interest is something that should be encouraged. For example the $250K the DSCC dropped in ads against Conrad Burns in the summer of '05 was probably the most effective expenditure they made all cycle. Perpetuating the myth that COH is a good thing instead of wasted potential helps no one.

by Bob Brigham 2007-07-03 12:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Only $14 mil?

$14m may be less than Rommney did last Q, but it's better than Edwards did. It's only a little less than Edwards and Richardson combined. Remember, HRC and Obama are not setting standards, they are being superstars we haven't seen since RFK and may not see for a few more decades. There's no comparison to the other candidates, you can't really criticize someone for bringing in seven or eight figures this far before an election.

But the so much for cash advantage analysis is true.

by Nathan Empsall 2007-07-03 12:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Only $14 mil?

I'm not so sure of that. Their prominence helps up donations, but it's likely to create a precedent, leading to increased donations in future cycles.

Besides, celebrity alone can't account for Romney and Giuliani getting beaten around 2-1 by Obama and Clinton in fundraising.

by Englishlefty 2007-07-03 03:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Only $14 mil?

Guiliani, no, that's a good point.

Romney, sure. He's no superstar celebrity.

by Nathan Empsall 2007-07-03 08:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Only $14 mil?

I was talking more about Clinton and Obama. They're sucking out a lot of the oxygen this time round, but that's likely to lead to increased contributions in future cycles.

by Englishlefty 2007-07-04 01:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Cash Advantage Thing

Good point about the below the radar stuff.

I know we all have our favorite presidential candidates, but let's not forget to give money to the Senate and Congressional campaign committees too.

I try to do that everytime I open my wallet for my presidential candidate.

by Bush Bites 2007-07-03 08:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: So Much For That Whole Republican Cash Advanta

Cash on hand's utility depends on the stage of the election cycle. It is great that the congressional and senate committees have good COH numbers right now, early in the cycle. They demonstrated last cycle that they are willing to use COH strategically.

COH is a bad thing very late in the cycle. See Kerry campaign 2004.

by anoregonreader 2007-07-04 10:40AM | 0 recs