Yesterday Sven at My Silver State posted a diary here on MyDD detailing the amount each member of the Senate Democratic caucus has given to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee -- the entity charged with seeking to grow the Democratic ranks in the upper chamber of Congress, with the goal this cycle or next of attaining a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority. This listing came on the heels of reports that Joe Lieberman, who has endorsed John McCain for President, has contributed $115,000 to the DSCC this year (on top of roughly that same amount contributed during the previous calendar year).

The listing isn't a perfect measure for gauging members' support for the DSCC -- it does not include the amount members have directly raised for the committee this cycle, for instance -- but it is a good start towards seeing the extent to which individual Senators are willing to be team players in creating a significantly larger majority that would greatly increase the likelihood of progressive legislation getting through Congress in the next two years. Looking through the list, there are a few names that stand out:

• Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, who is not up for reelection until 2010, has contributed just $15,000 to the DSCC through his PAC (not listed in Sven's post, but I'm told this is the accurate figure) despite the fact that he has more than $10.6 million in the bank in his campaign account.
  
• Tom Harkin, who is up for reelection this cycle, has contributed $20,000 while his campaign cash-on-hand sits at $4.1 million. For reference, Harkin's GOP challenger has $293 in the bank, and the polling puts Harkin up at least 15 points.
  
• John Kerry, who is also up for reelection this year, has given $32,000 to the DSCC ($30,000 through his PAC, plus a $2,000 check from his wife). He is currently sitting on close to $8.9 million in the bank (compared with less than $35,000 for his GOP opponent), and consistently leads by more than 20 points in the polls. In 2006, Kerry contributed $250,000 to the committee following that year's Use It Or Lose It effort.
  
• Max Baucus faces the voters in Montana this year. Baucus has already contributed north of $600,000 to the DSCC, but still has $5.5 million in the bank at a time when his opponent has not yet filed campaign finance reports.
  
• Jay Rockefeller is up for reelection in West Virginia this fall. He has contributed $350,000 to the DSCC, and may still need some of the $3.3 million he has on hand for his efforts this fall (though he is not considered vulnerable whatsoever at this juncture).

There are other names on the list, which is worth going through, but these names stand out as members who could potentially afford to contribute more to the effort to reach 60 seats in the Senate by making transfers to the DSCC.

So I am with desmoinesdem, Sven, and the others who would like to see another Use It Or Lose It effort this fall.  We here at MyDD are already doing our part to help out by contributing to candidates on the Road to 60 Act Blue page, but further effort could be used in politely -- politely -- asking members to dig a little deeper into their campaign accounts to help the DSCC expand the map and increase the likelihood of achieving a filibuster-proof margin in the chamber. Remember, this is money that they have raised, money that is under their control to use as they see fit (within the political context), so be respectful and do not make a demand. But if you ask nicely, it's just possible that they will see fit to transferring a bit more money to the DSCC, thus increasing the chances at a filibuster proof margin this fall.  

Here are the email contacts for Evan Bayh (info@allamericapac.com), Tom Harkin (link to contact form), John Kerry (support@johnkerry.com), Max Baucus (link to contact), and Jay Rockefeller (web@jay08.com). Be polite, be respectful, and we might just get something done.

There's more...

Mike Glover of the Associated Press bureau in Des Moines wrote a piece this week on the huge money advantage that Senator Tom Harkin and Iowa's five U.S. House incumbents have over their opponents.

I'll have more to say on this topic in future posts, but for now I want to note one thing: although nearly all incumbents are able to outspend their opponents, that is not always enough to overcome a national tidal wave toward the other party.

Bruce Braley (D, IA-01), Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) all represent districts with a Democratic tilt (of varying degrees) in what is likely to be a very big Democratic year.

The odds-makers might favor Tom Latham (R, IA-04) and Steve King (R, IA-05) now, but in a big year for the challenger's party, money and the other advantages of incumbency are not always enough to win.

Just ask Neal Smith, who was an 18-term incumbent and had more clout in 1994 than any Iowan currently serving in the U.S. House. I can't find campaign finance statistics going back that far, but I would bet that he spent more trying to keep his seat (IA-04) than Republican Greg Ganske spent in taking him down.

Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley spent "what aides say may total $1.5 million to $2 million, a staggering amount for a House race" in 1994, but he still lost to George Nethercutt in Washington's fifth district.

Chris Bowers had the most accurate final House forecast in 2006. But following several states' primaries in September of that year, he wrote:

NH-01 drops off the board since upset winner Shea-Porter has only 3% of her opponent's cash

And in his final House update, published on November 6, 2006, Bowers still had Shea-Porter's race in the "likely Republican" category, commenting, "If she wins, Carol Shea-Porter will become a legend."

Her shocking victory in New Hampshire's first district over an entrenched Republican incumbent was indeed legendary.

Obviously, it's better for a challenger to have as much money to spend as possible, which is why I've been encouraging Democrats to donate to our good Democratic candidates like Rob Hubler, who is taking on King in IA-05, and Becky Greenwald, who is running against Latham in IA-04.

Also, I would like to see another "Use it or lose it" campaign to encourage our ultra-safe Democratic incumbents giving more to the DCCC and DSCC. That would help reduce the money disparity faced by our challengers in many districts.

But I strongly disagree with the contention that a big lead in cash on hand makes Latham and King as safe as Iowa's Democratic incumbents this year.

There's more...

On Saturday a fundraising solicitation arrived in the mail from Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. It asked me to confirm delivery of the enclosed "supporter card" within ten days, and also to "help keep my 2008 re-election campaign on the road to victory" with a special contribution.

Funny, I wasn't aware that Harkin needed any extra help. Everyone in the election forecasting business has labeled this seat safe for him. The available polling shows Harkin with a comfortable lead.

According to Open Secrets, Harkin had $4.1 million cash on hand at the end of the second quarter. His little-known Republican opponent, Christopher Reed, has raised a total of $11,765 for his Senate campaign and had $292 (two hundred and ninety-two dollars) on hand as of June 30.

Harkin's letter got me thinking that we need a "Use It Or Lose It" campaign for 2008.

In 2006, MyDD and MoveOn.org launched a "Use It Or Lose It" campaign to contact "ultra-safe Democratic House Representatives and ask them to help fully fund all of our competitive challengers this cycle." The project spurred at least $2.3 million in additional major donations from House incumbents (click the link to read details).

A similar project targeted at safe incumbents in the House and Senate has the potential to raise even more money this year.

The Democratic House and Senate campaign committees have been crushing their Republican counterparts in fundraising. At the end of the second quarter, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had about $46.2 million cash on hand, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $54.7 million cash on hand. As of June 30, the DSCC had about twice the cash on hand as the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the DCCC had six times the cash on hand as the National Republican Congressional Committee.

But we should be able to outspend the Republicans even more if our Democrats in safe seats donate more to the relevant committees.

Everyone agrees that the Democrats have an unusually large number of solid pickup opportunities. Here's the Swing State Project list of competitive Senate races. All them are Republican-held but one (Louisiana), and that one is "lean Democratic." Only one Democratic-held seat (New Jersey) is even on the "races to watch" list.

Look at the most recent Senate forecast by Chris Bowers. He's projecting a pickup of six seats. He also lists ten "Democratic held, uncompetitive locks":

Arkansas (Pryor), Delaware (Biden), Illinois (Durbin), Iowa (Harkin), Massachusetts (Kerry), Michigan (Levin), Montana (Baucus), Rhode Island (Reed), South Dakota (Johnson), West Virginia (Rockefeller)

I haven't added up the cash on hand numbers for all those incumbents from the latest FEC filings, but it must total many millions of dollars.

In the past six weeks, the DSCC has sent out many fundraising e-mails touting "11 battleground states" (Alaska, Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Virginia).

How many more Senate races could become more competitive if the DSCC were able to put significant resources behind our candidates? Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Georgia immediately come to mind.

The netroots are already working hard to promote Democratic challengers for Republican-held seats. Daily Kos has featured 10 House and four Senate candidates in its "Orange to Blue" ActBlue page. MyDD is raising money for five Senate candidates on its "Road to 60" ActBlue page. SenateGuru even went "on strike" until readers donated enough to three of eleven candidates on SenateGuru's ActBlue page.

But it's likely that Tom Harkin alone could donate more to the DSCC than all of the donors to all of those ActBlue pages combined.

Not only that, but safe Democratic incumbents sitting on huge war chests could do a lot for legislative candidates in their home states. A few thousand dollars can go very far in a statehouse race.

I don't mean to pick on Harkin. (After all, he was the only senator to have the guts to vote against confirming Gen. David Petraeus as the new chief of U.S. Central Command last month.)

More to the point, I know Harkin is already helping other Democrats. He has reportedly donated to the Iowa Democratic Party's GOTV efforts. Over the weekend he held a joint event with Becky Greenwald, the Democratic candidate for Iowa's fourth Congressional district. Earlier this summer, he gave $2,000 each to five Iowa House and five Iowa Senate candidates, plus an extra $5,000 to two candidates who received the most votes from constituents in Harkin's "Building Blue" contest. I hear rumors that Harkin will hold fundraisers for other Democratic candidates in key Iowa statehouse races, or perhaps donate substantial amounts to the Iowa House and Senate Democratic leadership funds.

For all I know Harkin has already donated a substantial amount to the DSCC as well. I couldn't find a list of Senate incumbents who have given to that fund.

But still--Harkin had more than $4.1 million in the bank at the end of June, which is more than 14,000 times the amount his Republican challenger had in the bank. Couldn't Harkin dig a little deeper to help the DSCC get behind Scott Kleeb, Jim Slattery, Andrew Rice and other good Democrats?

While I've talked primarily about Senate races in this diary, of course a potential "Use It Or Lose It" 2008 campaign should also focus on some House incumbents. The DCCC has reserved ad time in 51 districts so far, and only 17 of those are Democratic-held. (Click here for the first wave of DCCC ad buys and here to see the 20 districts targeted in the second wave.) I take that to mean that the DCCC feels confident about holding more than 200 of our House seats.

There have to be at least 150 House Democrats who meet the "ultra safe" standard and should be putting more of their campaign funds into the DCCC pot.

Look at Swing State Project's list of competitive House races. Four Republican-held seats are in the "lean Democrat" category, another 11 are "tossups", another 17 are "lean Republican," and at least two dozen more could become competitive with more money for Democratic challengers to spend. Meanwhile, no Democratic-held seats are in the "lean R" category, and only two are even rated tossups.

How many of those Lean R or Likely R races can we break open with more money for challengers to spend? How many races not even on Swing State Project's list right now could become surprise wins for us, along the lines of NH-01 in 2006?

For instance, Swing State Project's list does not currently include the two Republican-held seats in Iowa, but in my opinion both Becky Greenwald in IA-04 and Rob Hubler in IA-05 have a chance to win in a strong Democratic year. (I explain why here and here.)

I look forward to reading your thoughts and suggestions on a possible Use It Or Lose It campaign.

There's more...

During the 2006 election cycle, which resulted in Democrats winning back both the House and the Senate, one of the most effective initiatives to spur Democratic fundraising was the Use It or Lose It campaign.  The campaign urged "safe" House Democrats to contribute significant sums to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to put towards bolstering the efforts of Democrats in more competitive races.  The end result, as mentioned, was a solid, new Democratic House majority, to which the Use It or Lose It effort no doubt played a helpful role.  I'm sure it also played a very helpful role in encouraging Democratic donors to contribute all they could, seeing as many Democratic legislators were leading by example.

Republicans, particularly in the Senate, were much stingier when it came to contributing to their campaign committees.  One of my favorite factoids from the '06 cycle was the case of then-Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Dick Shelby:

Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) gave $15,000 to the NRSC, leaving $11.5 million in his account even though he will not face reelection until 2010.

Dick Shelby's actions should be regarded as a cautionary tale.  Back in 2004, Shelby won 68% of the vote against token opposition, spending all of $2.6 million.  Keep in mind that he raised $9.3 million during the cycle, hence his current hefty warchest.  Though Shelby will be 76 on Election Day 2010, we can assume that, due to his stinginess, he is at least planning on keeping his options open for a re-election bid, if he is not already committed to one.  So he will need money.  But, given his ability to raise funds and the relative safety of his red-state seat, he most certainly could have afforded to cough up more than $15,000, which is the absolute minimum amount Senators are traditionally expected to contribute to their respective Party's campaign committees.

Would Shelby chipping in, say, a cool $1 million instead of the mere $15,000 have made a difference in 2006?  Given that the Senate race in Virginia, in which Democrat Jim Webb bested Republican incumbent George Allen, was decided by only 7,231 votes out of over 2.3 million votes cast, and given that the Senate race in Montana, in which Democrat Jon Tester beat Republian incumbent Conrad Burns, was decided by an even closer 2,847 votes out of over 400,000 votes cast, an extra million dollars to spend by the National Republican Senatorial Committee between Virginia and Montana could have definitely made the difference.  It is perfectly rational to suggest that, had Shelby contributed $1 million (that he wouldn't miss anyway) to the NRSC instead of just $15,000, Republicans may have very well held on to both the Virginia and Montana Senate seats and, however slimly, maintained the Senate majority.  And Dick Shelby would still be a Committee Chairman, with a hefty campaign bankroll of $10.5 instead of $11.5 million.

(Much more below the fold.)

There's more...

The Senate class of 2008 is both extroadnarily Republican and extroadinarily poor, as measured by the cash-on-hand for incumbents in the latest round of FEC reports.  Since the last deadline was 12/31/06, the reports are filed as part of the 2006 election ccyle at www.fec.gov.

The rich:  Nine Senators have a cash balance of three million or more.  Remarkably, only one of the nine, is a member of the class of 2008.  This group is shown below the fold in order of their cash balances.  Four Senators from this group won re-election in 2006, four are up for re-eelection in 2010, and one is up for re-election next year.  Seven of the nine well-to-do campaigns are for Democrats including the richest of all, Hillary Clinton and three of the four with a balance over $10 million.

There's more...