MyDD :: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems

DCCC , DSCC Money Problems

by Matt Stoller, Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 04:56:56 PM EST

Cmte Raised Spent CoH
RNC $10.8 $8.9 $40.8
DNC $6.2 $4.1 $8.9
NRCC $5.4 $4.3 $20.8
DCCC $3.1 $2.5 $16.3
NRSC** $5.5 $2.5 $14.5
DSCC $3.8 $1.8 $27.4

Combined GOP Cmte Cash-on-Hand: $76.1M
Combined Dem Cmte Cash-on-Hand: $52.6M

The DCCC and the DSCC aren't raising as much money as the NRCC and NRSC. This is probably because the large dollar donors angry at Dean who flooded to the committees have hit ~~tapped out~~ McCain-Feingold limits, and the smaller donors aren't interested in supporting leaders like Rahm Emanuel who are fighting tooth and nail against a coherent Iraq strategy.

Tags: DCCC, Rahm Emanuel, money, fundraising, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer (all tags)

Permalink :: 37 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (3.00 / 1)

Coherent Iraq Policy = What Murtha says.

by wintersnowman on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:01:34 PM EST

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (3.00 / 2)

For small donors, it doesn't make sense to contribute to the committees who play in primaries, potentially risking a situation where a small donor is donating against a candidate she likes. Small donors aren't looking for access, but are interested in doing the right thing. So contributing directly to candidates or investing in a DNC Democracy Bond for the 50 state strategy makes far more sense than the committees. It used to be, only the insiders knew what was going on in all the races, but with explosion in free election information it makes it easy for people to choose which candidates they want to support. The Republicans get this too, but their middlemen aren't working against the base so they fund the committees and directly fund candidates.

by blogswarm on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:10:18 PM EST

how long till our guys (none / 0)

figure that out?

by Teaser on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: how long till our guys (none / 0)

I don't know, but I do remember the DSCC ripping on the NRSC's burn rate last year when they were investing in a small donor base.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for them to figure it out. Today's IL-06 question is whether the DC Democrats will suffer an "embarrassing loss".

The one candidate who has worked with both the DCCC and the DSCC this cycle is getting tons of media and dropping the F-Bomb on the selected candidate (which is now on t-shirts).

Then there is Florida and Pennsylvania and yet they still think that everyone is happy if DC is happy.

by blogswarm on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:47:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hackett is no Democrat (none / 0)

Thanks for the link. It allows me to call Hackett an asshole for pretending he was a Democrat.

On his former Senate primary opponent: "F--- Sherrod."

Excuse me?

"So I don't like Sherrod Brown? Big deal. People have got to get over that," Hackett said, adding that he still plans to vote for Brown.

But ... what language!

"It feels good to be able to say that now. No more, `Oh, you can't use the f-bomb,'" Hackett said with a chuckle, adding that more politicians shouldn't be afraid to speak their mind.

Honestly I'm embarassed I sent money to such a preening dick.

How does Hackett feel about Senator DeWine and what is he doing to make sure that DeWine doesn't get re-elected in the fall? His one-vote doesn't count for much but going public with his dislike of Sherrod Brown surely counts for many votes for DeWine.

To call Hackett a loose cannon hardly seems adequate.

by Curt Matlock on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 06:25:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he is a Democrat (none / 0)

He's going to vote for the Democrat.

All he did was say what he thought of the Democrat he is voting for, which is something people have the ability to do in a post-broadcast media environment. The problem isn't what Hackett is saying, the problem is that people in DC refuse to accept the fact such a sentiment is being heard.

The new progressive media infrastructure allows such a backlash against bossing elections that such actions are politically counter-productive. As a Democrat, I'm less worried that there is discussion than I am worried that the DC Democrats fail to appreciate the fact that their actions are counter-productive. That is the bigger problem, far bigger than Ohio. And the answer to that problem is the same answer to the DSCC and DCCC fundraising problems.

by blogswarm on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 06:37:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is a Democrat (none / 0)

I agree with you that the powers-that-be-in-DC royally screwed up the Ohio Senate race and I don't doubt machinations by Brown. But that is done. Right now job one needs to be winning elections. If you can work in some party reform in the bargain then more power to you. I do respect that you and others genuinely are working hard to bring about positive change but I'm concerned that long-term strategic goals are getting in the way of the short-term tactical considerations that are going to be needed to win elections.

I'm willing to believe that Brown would not be someone I'd want to have a beer with. Since that apparently is a big thing in getting votes that's a pretty serious charge. But shouldn't all this be swept under the rug while we've still got a race in Ohio? Is sending a message to the DCCC and DSCC more important than getting Sherrod elected? For me the answer is clearly no. Just as Howard Dean emerged from the chaos at the end of 2004 to lead the DNC in a reforming movement I'd hope similar scrutiny will be directed at the DSCC and DCCC next year.

I'm absolutely sick of the shift to the right in our country that I've witnessed ever since Reagan was President. It's got to stop! Before the stakes weren't as high. But now the GOP has every branch of government and they have accelerated their successes at turning the America I know into the Soviet Union that I hated. Other elections in the last 40 years weren't so crucial. Let's not forget the age of the liberal members of the Supreme Court or the fact that we still have a war ongoing in a foreign country. These are important times that demand Democrats win elections in 2006 to restore the balance of power. Infighting in Ohio is threatening to make the task all that much harder.

I know you believe this and I believe Paul Hackett probably does too. I think his heart is in the right place but by god, he's got to do something to help win the Ohio Senate race after he assisted in driving down Brown's numbers.

All he did was say what he thought of the Democrat he is voting for, which is something people have the ability to do in a post-broadcast media environment. The problem isn't what Hackett is saying, the problem is that people in DC refuse to accept the fact such a sentiment is being heard

I don't believe you are giving enough credit to the weight that Hackett's words carry. You make it sound as if he is just some solitary voter who doesn't have an army of supporters hanging on his every word. He is influential and right now what he is doing is inflaming divisions within the Party. I just don't see the payoff from Hackett's actions and strongly believe he has done and is doing damage to our chances to win the Senate seat in Ohio held by Republican Mike DeWine.

One last point. While this may be true:

... I am worried that the DC Democrats fail to appreciate the fact that their actions are counter-productive. That is the bigger problem, far bigger than Ohio.

I don't think Paul Hackett clearly showing the electorate of Ohio how much he despises the Democratic candidate for Senate is in any way helpful to reforming the party or winning Ohio.

by Curt Matlock on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:17:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is a Democrat (none / 0)

I don't think Hackett telling the truth is the problem. I would rather hear that X-candidate inspires people than hear that X-candidate is a fuck, but he's better on than the Republican.

I don't think 2006 is the most important election ever, I'm more interesting in finding the best practices that allow Democrats to win in 2006 without hurting our Party in the long run.

I see OH-Sen and IL-06 as both examples of what not to do. We didn't get in this situation in a single election and we aren't going to get out of it in a single election either. Realizing that, actions that have little benefit in the short-term and are very self-defeating in the long-term don't make much sense.

by blogswarm on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is a Democrat (none / 0)

I generally agree with your post except regarding Hackett. Hackett personally is doing needless damage. He's not just some guy with an opinion. Until recently he was a Democrat who told Ohio voters that he was the one that Democrats should vote for to represent them in the general election for the Senate. Now he's apparently renounced partisan concerns such as winning in the U.S. Senate election in Ohio.

IMHO, even though a few national figures went against him, which I also deplore, Hackett has still done the Democratic Party wrong in Ohio and needs to do what he told the people in Ohio he was going to do. Namely, help replace Mike DeWine with a Democrat. If he is unwilling to do that actively, which I can certainly understand, then he could at least do us the favor of telling his many followers in the netroots that they need to quit bitching about what should have been and stop driving up Brown's negatives.

I am curious about which actions you refer to when you say:

Realizing that, actions that have little benefit in the short-term and are very self-defeating in the long-term don't make much sense.

I can think of several that apply. One would be the short-circuiting of the Ohio primary. That was a mistake. Who made it? Certainly the party insiders who worked against Hackett are culpable, but just as certainly so is Hackett. His bitter withdrawal from the race was short-term self-defeating for the party and if the damage it did to Sherrod Brown is decisive it will have been damaging at least over a six-year term.

But having said that I want to make clear I agree that the party needs reform and one of the first places it needs to start is the way it stifles competition among its candidates in order to avoid primaries. If they would have let events run their course it's very possible the primary would have strengthened the eventual candidate. But now, because of poor decision making by party power brokers that experiment in practical Ohio politics won't be run. The party can't be allowed to continue to shut out rank and file people from the process in this way and if you can help change that I'll salute you.

by Curt Matlock on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:41:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (none / 0)

Chump change...

Any legit 2008 hopeful is going to need to raise at least $100M. Wait until then and then start talking about who is in trouble.

by bjtravgwu on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:17:57 PM EST

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (none / 0)

Is that an analysis Matt?

What does "the large dollar donors angry at Dean who flooded to the committees are tapped out" mean??

I'm going to assume you mean that the committees spent too much... even though percentage wise yr number show the DNC spending less than the RNC, the NRCC & DCCC spending at the same 80% rate, and the NRSC spending just 2% more than the DSCC. Are you talking about the last quarter quarter? can you post that data side-by-side?

Very confusing!

I'm sure yr Rahm comments are part right, but aren't there many other more important factors??

My theory: Small Dem donors tend to target politicians more and more everyday, because they want to have more of a say in where their dollars go.

by marksist on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:26:04 PM EST

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (none / 0)

Small donors can give repeatedly, large donors hit McCain-Feingold ceilings and can't.

by Matt Stoller on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:43:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (none / 0)

I think your main post is right. I send every solicitation from the DCCC/DSSC back with a note telling them why they aren't getting any yet, and I have given in 4 figures (aggregate) to candidates so far.

But I don't understand this comment. The limit is the same for everyone. Are you saying there are a finite number of people who can give big dollars and they have already given all they can? I'm not so sure. I imagine there are many people who could still be tapped.

Besides, there is one limit for primaries and one for the general. So donors who are over the limit can give again to candidates, or give to candidates if they are over the limit for committees.

I think it is likely that many small donors are intending to give to candidates rather than the DCCC or DSSC, but are waiting until after the primaries in many cases.

And last time I gave to candidates early, and at the end to the committees, on the theory they had a better handle on who needed it most. I will probably do the same this cycle.

And remember, Dems just need to be at the 2-1 or 1.5-1 level to be competitive, because overhead is lower.

by Mimikatz on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:41:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (none / 0)

This post seems kind of slapped together to take a shot at Emanuel.

The Republicans will always have more money than the Democrats, due to their institutional advantages and the constituency they represent. How much more? Well, I have no idea. Any real analysis of whether the Dems are suffering "money problems" needs to look at history from comparable periods in order to see whether we're doing better or worse than we have in the past.

If you asked me for an off-the-cuff assessment of Democratic fundraising problems, I'd opine that the Dems' strategy of "sit on our hands and wait for the GOP to self-destruct" might tend to inspire donors to sit on their hands as well. After all, it shouldn't take much cash in order to win by default, if that's how the Dems really think it will play out.

But to engage in such speculation, I'd really first need a basis to believe that the Democrats have an actual money problem. That can't really be determined from this post.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:32:26 PM EST

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (none / 0)

Well generally the cw is that Rahm and Schumer are doing incredibly well because they are outraising the Republican committees. That they are no longer doing this is new information and suggests problems with the framework.

Good point though.

by Matt Stoller on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:44:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (none / 0)

That was my impression, too.

Republicans always outraise us. We're getting much better, but clearly aren't there, yet.

The key isn't getting Rahm to say the right thing. The key is an effective Democratic/progressive money infrastructure (sans the GOP money laundering details) that can funnel money where it's needed, regardless of whether a given Democratic official says the right thing on a given issue.

We really need to get over the idea that holding back our money or our support is a "punishment" for Democratic officials when they say the wrong thing on a given topic. We've been doing that for decades, and look where we are. We need to think bigger picture, if any of us are going to get what we want. And that starts with riding it out when someone says something dumb.

by jonweasel on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 06:39:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At Firedoglake (3.00 / 1)

I know our people refuse to give to the DCCC or the DSCC. I would be howled off the blog for suggesting it, and anyway, I wouldn't.

They will give to 1) individual candidates, 2) Feingold's Progressive Patriots and 3) the DNC, in that order.

by Pachacutec on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:50:36 PM EST

Re: At Firedoglake (3.00 / 1)

And let me add, the reasons are because neither the DSCC nor the DCCC are fighting for the base. Period. They are seen as accomodating sellouts.

by Pachacutec on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:52:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At Firedoglake (none / 0)

Seen as accomodating sell-outs?

They ARE accomodating sell-outs.

by redstar66 on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 06:02:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great (none / 0)

and in the meantime, our only chance for taking the country back from those who not only sell out, but are actively making the problem worse (e.g. the wingnuts), slips through our fingers.

None of this (the war, the Patriot Act, you name it) would have happened with a Democratic majority, made up as it would be of people like those you now consider sell-outs. Anyone who says differently doesn't have the best interests of this country and its people first.

Are they too scared to fight? Yep. But that just means we have to do the job ourselves. I'm NOT leaving this country in the hands of those who have already done so much damage.

by jonweasel on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 06:42:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (3.00 / 1)

None of this (the war, the Patriot Act, you name it) would have happened with a Democratic majority, made up as it would be of people like those you now consider sell-outs.

War: Democrats controlled the senate and only 42% of Democrats voted no.

Patriot Act: Democrats controlled the senate and only ONE senator voted no.

Yeah, you name it.

by blogswarm on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 06:52:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (none / 0)

Bob,
Dems controlled one half of one branch of the federal government. That's hardly a "Democratic majority".

And they were lied to, right along with the rest of the country. Either way, holding that against them and claiming that they're a bunch of "sell-outs" is a bit much.

by jonweasel on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:14:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (3.00 / 1)

I didn't say they were "sell-outs" but rather showed how your our rationalization doesn't work. You listed examples, they didn't work. What does it take, Dems controlling both houses and the President not lying before Dems get it right?

Democrats in DC have a problem.

by blogswarm on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (none / 0)

I didn't say they were "sell-outs" but rather showed how your our rationalization doesn't work.

That's fine -- I took your response as a defense of the prior poster's characterization.

Even so, I think that citing the war or the Patriot Act (a couple of the biggies those who love to call Dems "sell-outs" use) are themselves problematic if trying to make the case that Democrats are sell-outs. Considering the situation, the Senate Dems voting for those things were rather understandable, even if they should have taken a principled stand otherwise.

And part of that situation is the fact that Dems, and progressives in general, have problems, not just those in DC. We've been totally defensive for far too long.

by jonweasel on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (none / 0)

After reviewing my argument, I have to admit I didn't make a whole lot of sense with the "war" and "Patriot Act" examples. Teach me to post under conditions of severe sleep deprivation.

However, I think my last point still stands. Democrats in general, as well as progressives, have problems. Given our current situation, it's not all that fair to condemn DC Dems for everything they do "wrong", since a great deal of it results from the demands of self-preservation under very hostile conditions.

Yes, things need to change, in DC and out. But one thing that won't help that situation at all is an ideologically-pure circular firing squad.

We need to stop the bleeding first, then consider any purges that need to be done (with the exception of Lieberman, IMHO).

by jonweasel on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:34:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great (3.00 / 1)

So your argument is that those resolutions wouldn't have passed if there had been a few more true believers? People who would be more willing to take a stand than, you know...Jim McDermott and that complete sell out John Conyers. Come on. That seems a bit facile. The truth is that electing a Democratic majority would protect a woman's right to choose, ANWR, Social Security, and would have prevented Alito and Roberts, the Medicare Prescription bill, AND reauthorization or the PATRIOT Act. Anyone who says that having a minority composed of hardcore liberals beats having a majority that includes people like Bob Casey and Ben Nelson is a complete moron.

by JCarlFinn5 on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:38:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At Firedoglake (none / 0)

I've linked to this post in my post up now at FDL, in the updates.

by Pachacutec on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So... (none / 0)

I'm doubling my monthly to the DNC this week. Remember, if the twits at the DSCC/DCCC come up short, and the DNC is up...guess who has to show up hat in hand begging.

Remember folks, this is (sadly) all about power. We have one third of the troika on our side...it's our job to make that the strongest third. That tips the control over.

You think the DSCC/DCCC will stick their noses in the 2008 primaries if they get burned this time?

Anyone else?

(PS - To Tim T, etc... Can you contact me on this via e-mail? I started a low monthly over a year ago, and no one answered my e-mail via the site about getting that cancelled so I could up it. I don't want to get double billed on two tracks.)

by ElitistJohn on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 06:49:48 PM EST

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (3.00 / 1)

Is there any slightly comprehensive source of how much has been raised by the candidates independent of the committees? It seems to me as though the Democratic Party is pretty well built to facilitate direct giving to candidates since the party's belief structure isn't so monolithic as the Repubs.

Also, this seems like a great opportunity, if direct giving starts taking off in any meaningful way (not necessarily this year, but in general over a couple cycles) to start squeezing out all of the overpaid, incompetent consultants that the committees force onto candidates. And yes, I've been reading the book.

by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:04:28 PM EST

And here's a question (none / 0)

If Democrats retake the House in November, particularly if it's by a notable margin, will Rahm get any credit or will everyone assume it happened in spite of him and his incompetence?

by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:31:33 PM EST

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (none / 0)

um look at the DNC vs. RNC numbers, the gap, especially CoH is much bigger than DCCC or DSCC's gap.

I know HoHo is raising money for state parties and spending money to organize locally and small donors etc etc. but I think that is the bigger story.

Frankly I was surprised that DSCC had such a big lead for so long. CoH is still superior.

Democrats always have less money, but the GOP pay their staff more and waste more in general. They are used to living it up.

by DaveB on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:39:45 PM EST

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (none / 0)

I'm a small donor, and I know the reason I stopped giving to the congressional committees is twofold. First, I prefer giving to individual candidates in whom I can believe. Second, the impression I get from every email the committees write is "Republicans are venal and incompetent. They're destroying our nation. The only way to counter them is to elect more Democrats. Give us money and we'll decide for you which Democrats those should be."

Well, that's not good enough, boys and girls. To start with, you care too much about game-playing and not enough about principle. You're really good about gleefully acknowledging Republican screw-ups, but you never tell me what your plans are for fixing them. You just say, "Trust us." Yeah, right!

You know what they remind me of? Remember the Monty Puthon movie Life of Bryan? The scene when members of one of the revolutionary committees have just acknowledged what they consider some Roman outrage; they shout in unison that it's time for them to take action; so they...what? appoint a committee to study the problem, right?

by Scarabus on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:10:16 PM EST

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (3.00 / 1)

I recommend giving money to them in the last two monthes after the primaries are done.

Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.

by Liberal on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why can't we ever win this battle? (none / 0)

What needs to be done to beat Republicans in fundraiseing...

Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.

by Liberal on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 08:28:00 PM EST

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (none / 0)

Gee the DCCC has money problems so what do they do they waste a good chunk of it trying to sabotage Cegelis with a carpetbagger whose only virtue has been her willingness to obey the orders of her male "superiors" even when it involves participiating in an illegal war by illegal means.

I guess obedience is considered to be a higher virtue then integrity by the DCCC.

by Rational on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 10:22:51 PM EST

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (none / 0)

Apparently, however, our candidates are doing better than theirs. I forget where I read it, but we had far more candidates hitting $100K by 12/31/05 than they did.

by nathan on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 07:57:09 AM EST

Re: DCCC , DSCC Money Problems (none / 0)

DCCC, Rahm Emanuel, money, fundraising, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer. Your tags hit the problem right on the head.

by danwalter on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 04:39:26 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.