Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Scipio · 02-24-2004, 12:59 PM

Historically, by which I mean under the pre-McCain-Feingold fundraising environment, the Democratic party tended to rely on large donations from wealthy individuals. Both parties benefitted from the theoretically unlimited soft money donations that the system permitted.

Now, however, the key is hard money. The individual donation limit was raised from $1000 to $2000. Ads are more closely regulated, and candidates can no longer accept soft money. The approaches to operating in this fundraising system have varied.

Bush draws the lion's share of his cash from large donations. Perhaps you've heard that individuals who raise large amounts of money for the campaign are given special status as "rangers," or as "pioneers." They do this by having $2000 a plate dinners where a bunch of wealthy donors get together, see GWB, and write a check. Considerable networking skills are required to pull off these events, and they aren't limited to either party, though Bush has had greater success with them.

I take issue with the misleading statistics that Ustwo's article provided. First, the numbers are entirely from the old fundraising system. Second, they are aggregate numbers from a midterm election. They don't accurately reflect what is going on in fundraising under the new system or under this election. The editorial is really quite irrelevant to the question at hand: what about Bush's campaign war chest? What does that say about the system?

Clearly, when the public finance system does more harm than good to competitive candidates, something's going wrong. Fundraising is part of the modern campaign; I think it would be nice to move over to a system of complete public financing of presidential elections, but it would be a difficult and expensive program to administer. For better or for worse, contributing to a campaign is a fundamental democratic act, and I'm not sure that it should be removed from the system. We ought to do what we can to prevent any kind of quid pro quo, but that is also difficult to do. As I noted, an individual can only contribute two grand. Or can they? I might organize a fundraiser that diverts $150,000 to a campaign. Would I expect something in return?

Last note: the democratic candidates have together raised nearly as much money as Bush has. They've spent more of it, but it's only the primary. Should Kerry, who opted out of public finance, win the nomination, I expect that he will be able to compete with Bush head-on in the money department. Like Trippi always said: 2 million donors, $100 each. The internet is how you do it.

02-24-2004, 12:59 PM	#16 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	Historically, by which I mean under the pre-McCain-Feingold fundraising environment, the Democratic party tended to rely on large donations from wealthy individuals. Both parties benefitted from the theoretically unlimited soft money donations that the system permitted. Now, however, the key is hard money. The individual donation limit was raised from $1000 to $2000. Ads are more closely regulated, and candidates can no longer accept soft money. The approaches to operating in this fundraising system have varied. Bush draws the lion's share of his cash from large donations. Perhaps you've heard that individuals who raise large amounts of money for the campaign are given special status as "rangers," or as "pioneers." They do this by having $2000 a plate dinners where a bunch of wealthy donors get together, see GWB, and write a check. Considerable networking skills are required to pull off these events, and they aren't limited to either party, though Bush has had greater success with them. I take issue with the misleading statistics that Ustwo's article provided. First, the numbers are entirely from the old fundraising system. Second, they are aggregate numbers from a midterm election. They don't accurately reflect what is going on in fundraising under the new system or under this election. The editorial is really quite irrelevant to the question at hand: what about Bush's campaign war chest? What does that say about the system? Clearly, when the public finance system does more harm than good to competitive candidates, something's going wrong. Fundraising is part of the modern campaign; I think it would be nice to move over to a system of complete public financing of presidential elections, but it would be a difficult and expensive program to administer. For better or for worse, contributing to a campaign is a fundamental democratic act, and I'm not sure that it should be removed from the system. We ought to do what we can to prevent any kind of quid pro quo, but that is also difficult to do. As I noted, an individual can only contribute two grand. Or can they? I might organize a fundraiser that diverts $150,000 to a campaign. Would I expect something in return? Last note: the democratic candidates have together raised nearly as much money as Bush has. They've spent more of it, but it's only the primary. Should Kerry, who opted out of public finance, win the nomination, I expect that he will be able to compete with Bush head-on in the money department. Like Trippi always said: 2 million donors, $100 each. The internet is how you do it. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."