Comments on: PARTIES AND MONEY

By: John

John — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

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.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Or die :)

By: Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

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?

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

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

By: John

John — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

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.

By: The World Around You

The World Around You — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Campaign Finance Reform
James at OTB has found some numbers to back his contention that the McCain-Feingold campaign reform laws are actually going to hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans. This table from the same website indicates that the Democrats began to...

---