NRCC Actually Has $740,000 Less In the Bank It They Reported

As of the latest campaign finance filings, the National Republican Congressional Committee reported having a net $4.1 million in the bank. This number compared with the net $33.8 million held by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee at last tally.

It's worth noting that although the NRCC faced worse than an 8-to-1 net cash-on-hand disadvantage against the DCCC as of the end of January, that spread does not include the nearly $1.3 million the committee spent in an unsuccessful effort to save the seat vacated by former House Speaker Denny Hastert (as much of that spending occurred in February and thus will be reported in about a week). What it did apparently include, however, was a whole lot of money that the NRCC didn't actually have.

In what had to be a painful press release to write, the National Republican Congressional Committee -- representing the party taking some hits in recent years for its record on fiscal management and competence -- acknowledged today that Chris Ward, a longtime employee and NRCC treasurer since 2003, had been fabricating financial statements to the bank and handing in "bogus audit reports" from 2002 through 2006.

This story broke last month ...but this latest news is grim.

NRCC chairman Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla, said that "evidence we have today indicates we have been deceived and betrayed for a number of years by a highly respected and trusted individual. From the moment we learned that bogus financial statements had been submitted to the bank on our behalf, we took decisive and speedy action by contacting the FBI, which opened a criminal investigation."

Cole said that an external review found that at the end of 2006, "the NRCC's actual cash on hand was approximately $990,000 less than the amount reported to the FEC. The actual cash on hand as of the NRCC's most recent FEC report for January 31, 2008 (filed on February 20, 2008) was $740,000 less than the amount reported to the FEC." [emphasis added]

Taking this stunning new revelation into account, this would mean that the NRCC is actually in a significantly bigger hole than previously projected. Specifically, the NRCC actually has $30.4 million less than the DCCC, and faces greater than a 10-to-1 disadvantage. With numbers like these and serious questions remaining about the way that the committee handles its finances, it's getting hard to see how it would be able to make up much of that difference.



Display:


Re: NRCC Actually Has $740,000 (none / 0)

Just to be clear, though, what really matters is the total of NRCC and RNC versus DCCC and DNC, and there the ball field is much closer. The bad guys have been funnelling most of their money into the RNC so they have maximum flexibility as to spending on House versus Senate. The DNC has been focused on staff in the states and basically has no warchest for the Fall.


by ColoradoGuy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:00:57 PM EST

Re: NRCC Actually Has $740,000 (none / 0)

There's always got to be somebody around with the cold water jug, doesn't there?

P.S.-No wonder all they wanted to talk about was Spitzer.


by spirowasright on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NRCC Actually Has $740,000 (none / 0)

I think it should be noted that this is because the dnc is working on creating a superior grassroots campaign.
 we needed infrastructure for this
by theninjagoddess on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NRCC Actually Has $740,000 (none / 0)

As the NRCC is the flagship finance organization of the three, that the DCCC is handing them their lunch is laudable. (And shocking when you look at the uptick of candidate & LPAC contributions in the last quarter to the NRCC and the DCCC was still within a 100K. With that wet noodle Van Hollen.

Further, the DNC is going to spend about no time worrying about races other than this kerfuffled up presidential. The Dtrip and DS need to be self-sufficient. The DCCC did most of 2006 without much financial help from the DiNC and I don't think they expect too much come November.  That is the world of institutional parties that the Dems have decided to play so atleast they have figured out how to do it well.

That said, I would have loved to be in the room when folks were asking Nancy why they put their convention packages out so early. That is what happens when you exclude two state delegations--they have to find so other way to get to the DNCC. Good on the Dtrip for capitalizing on that.. a missed fundraising opportunity to the DS and DiNC. Sorry for the digression.

What a hot mess at the NRCC. WooHoo!


by hctb on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:58:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NRCC Actually Has $740,000 Less In the Bank It (none / 0)

GREAT SUCCESS


by theninjagoddess on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:08:10 PM EST

Another nail in Cole's coffin (none / 0)

The only issue right now is that the DNC is behind the RNC (both our committees rocking theirs).  I'd love to see Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton do some kind of joint funding appeal for the DNC, but I guess given the atmosphere right now its pretty much impossible.  

Too bad, because the DNC's the only thing that can hit McCain right now (although some unions are stepping up).  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:26:26 PM EST

Re: NRCC Actually Has $740,000 Less (none / 0)

Oh man, this is the best news I've heard in a while.  Nothing says "Fiscal Responsibility" like shady accounting practices.


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:27:00 PM EST

Re: NRCC Actually Has $740,000 Less In the Bank It (none / 0)

That is a good point about the DNC v. RNC, but let me be clear first that I do support the DNC using its cash to support the individual state parties either by fundraising directly for them or supplying paid staffers in each of the states.  That being said, since it is looking like of the 3 branches (President, House, and Senate) that the Republicans have a chance of controlling, it is only that of the Presidency.  Now comparing McCain's fundraising so far to that of either Obama or Clinton, it would seem the RNC is going to be mostly focused on using its cash advantage on the Presidential race.
Also, and I am not sure why I am thinking this but I believe I have heard, read somewhere, something like that, that the RNC has usually run the Republican's GOTV while the DCCC and DSCC has usually done it for the Democrats.  Hopefully this will not be as resource neutral due to the grassroots activity driven by the actions of the DNC.
by steburke on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:30:20 PM EST

Re: NRCC Actually Has $740,000 Less In the Bank It (none / 0)

The Republicans are somewhat more integrated.  The Dems have developed this way because of the disparate goals between the three.  If you invest all of your GoTV in swing states, that leaves the competitive races in red districts and states put to dry. The Republicans seem to be somewhat better in this regard but I think this is because of better infrastructure in blue states and the hierarchy of leadership that demands more communication over there.

Ofcourse, none of that prevented someone from totally f-ing up their finances. Faking audits?  How does that not get noticed?


by hctb on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NRCC Actually Has $740,000 Less In the Bank It (none / 0)

didn't the nrcc just net something like $6.8-$8 million a few nights ago?


!
by alex100 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:52:53 PM EST

Re: NRCC Actually Has $740,000 Less In the Bank It (none / 0)

Didn't they just find out someone was skimming money off the top too?


Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome
by kasjogren on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:54:20 PM EST

NRCC Has $740,000 Less than They Reported (none / 0)

Wait, I'm confussed.  Was he embezzeling money or just lying to make them look better.


by goodleh on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:56:24 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.