PARTIES AND MONEY
 |
James Joyner | Monday, July 21, 2003 |
I’ve been going back and forth with John Constantine in the comments section of this earlier post and we’ve both been searching for numbers on the oft-told story that, contrary to the initial expectations, McCain-Feingold actually hurts the Democrats more than Republicans because the former rely more on soft money.
I’ve finally located some numbers:
So, it looks that the claim is both true as evidenced by the 2000 elections but either a fluke or a new phenomenon in that the Republicans were doing far better previously.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- The World Around You linked with Campaign Finance Reform
Many thanks for finding the numbers... It still seems to my naive eyes that Republicans raise more in soft money than the Dems, so the contention that they rely more on it seems somewhat misleading. Perhaps because they raise less than the republicans in hard money, this may contribute to the notion. But since they both raise about as much, I don't see how that really follows. But again, I'm naive. I do agree with the premise that campaign finance laws - as currently written - hurt the Dems more. But that still doesn't lessen my desire to see more campaign finance reform.
I think that's the argument. Absent soft money, the Republicans have a $465.8M to $275.2M advantage ceteris paribus, which, of course, they never are. I presume the Democrats will adapt in an election cycle or two.
Or die :)
I'm confused. What do you mean, "the Republicans were doing far better previously"?
The numbers seem to indicate that the Republicans have always done better at raising hard money (by nearly 2:1) but roughly the same at raising soft money.
What changed in 2000?
Kevin--
I mean that 2000 was the only year on the chart that the Reps and Dems were roughly at parity in soft money. In 1992, the GOP was roughly 33% better and in 1996, roughly 20% better.
I don't know why 2000 was different. The rules hadn't changed yet. Maybe Clinton and Co. had just figured something out? They were obviously raising a ton of cash.
My kingdom for a good memory....
Wasn't there an artice that a whole bunch of people blogged about 60 days ago that said something to the effect that 40% of the Dems money came for like 100 donors or something?
The point that was made at the time was that these super rich people were the core of the Dems donations. If campain finance reform knocked those donations down, the dems were in trouble.
(dusting of cobwebs in my brain--)
OH YEAH- It was a George Will column as I recall. Anyone remember it? It might have at least some of the data you folks are looking for.
Paul
technically, that's impossible for the hard money. $1000 was the maximum (I think, can't remember). So unless they were really breaking the law in an obvious way, that can't be true. Now soft money is something that this number could be true. I'd be mighty impressed, though, if it were the case.
Comments are Closed
