« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama Not Solving Democrat Money Woes

By: Brian Faughnan (Diary)  |  June 17th, 2009 at 06:41 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

When Democrats gained a firm lock on all the power in Washington, one thing that seemed sure to follow was a huge edge in fundraising. After all, Barack Obama is a one-man money machine, and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would surely be able to raise tons of cash from industries worried how Congress might treat them. Instead, their fundraising has been lackluster – and Barack Obama doesn’t seem to be helping:

Thursday night’s joint Democratic fundraiser headlined by President Barack Obama is expected to bring in a total of $3 million for the two Democratic campaign committees, according to a party strategist familiar with the event.

The figure is surprisingly low considering Obama’s vaunted fundraising ability during the 2008 presidential campaign and the fact that this is the first joint fundraiser benefiting Congressional Democrats since the party regained control of the White House. It’s also about $11.5 million less than what GOP officials said they raised last week for the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee at a dinner featuring former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.)…

Republicans also claimed that Democrats were only trying to lower expectations ahead of the release of the dinner’s fundraising total.

“The reality is that the Democrats have the most successful fundraiser in history as their party leader and Democratic majorities in both chambers who are mining K Street for campaign dollars while threatening lobbyists who meet with Republicans,” NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh said. “So this dollar amount sounds less about the real world we’re all living in and more about claiming to meet a faux pledge that they will not accept lobbyist money on Obama’s watch.”

Roll Call makes clear that it’s not exactly this simple. The Republican Committees and Democrat Committees count their donations in different ways – and the effect is to somewhat inflate the numbers for the Republican event, at least as compared to that of the Democrats. Most seem to agree however, that the overall number for the Democrats is underwhelming.

One of the excuses offered is that Barack Obama refused to authorize a personal pitch under his name. And if Democrats are quick to point out something so embarrassing, they must be hurting.

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

    This is pretty startling, actually. Like everyone, I figured it would the the GOP that would find lackluster fundraising if anyone would.

    Still, maybe it’s the “we won” disease scaling over them. Since “we won” perhaps many might find less imputes to send in donations to political causes. After all, they already paid, and they won. Why do they have to keep paying?

    I don’t know, but I find it interesting, anyway.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      Maybe there’s no more to give, especially in this economy, or maybe…

  • MAGUY

    With O and the Dems creating the GM/Chrysler/UAW cash cow, ACORN manning the streets, and the MSM providing free support for the Dem agenda (see ABC and health care for the latest example) the GOP could have 10x the money the Dems have and still be at a disadvantage

    • itdiehard

      allocated the Dem’s 5 billion and lot of Republicans supported the bill. Why work hard at raising money when you have the power of the purse. Recent road signs boosting this project brought to you by America reinvestment act….

    • jcincy

      MAGUY nails it. Why would Obama want to fund the DNC, when is already funding his radical base with taxpayer dollars? This insures the DNC will answer to him and not anyone else.

      The MSM is nothing more than PR arm of the Obama machine.

      We are witnessing a great shaking of political power that this land has not seen since the late 1700s.

  • NeoKong

    I’m sure that when the time comes the DNC and Barack Obama will just turn off the security features on their websites and the money will come rolling in from who knows where.
    Why get caught up in who or what is legal or not?

    Maybe that lady Ima Terrist will contribute again or that nice fellow Bailey Meeyowt.
    If they have any legal questions concerning this you are kindly referred to their legal counsel at the law firm Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.

  • eburke

    money through unsecured websites in amounts that fly under the radar of those tough, get-the-money-out-of-politics campaign finance laws.

    So, btw, John – how’d those laws you authored work out for ya?

    • seandparnell

      McCain was under the delusion that anybody really gives a hoot about campaign finance “reform.” I wrote about this several months back: McCain’s non-existent “reform” voters

      ?the taxpayer-funded system as a viable part of presidential campaign financing was demolished by Obama, [as well as] the idea that some noticeable number of Americans actually care enough about campaign finance “reform” for it to influence their vote.

      McCain was almost certainly banking on turning Obama’s decision to opt out of the taxpayer-funded system into a liability for the Obama campaign. His campaign sharply criticized Obama for going back on his earlier apparent pledge to participate in the taxpayer-funded system, and brought it up repeatedly. When reports surfaced late in the campaign that there may have been improper contributions made to the Obama campaign over the internet, the McCain campaign was quick to pounce, making the normal noises about “corruption” and the need for campaign finance “reform.”

      ?The votes the McCain campaign was hoping for over the issue of Obama’s fundraising practices and success simply never materialized, because they do not exist. Sure, lots of Democrats feign outrage that Republicans get money from individuals connected to the oil and pharmaceutical industries or from the National Rifle Association’s PAC, while Republicans work themselves into hysterics that Democrats receive funding from persons and PACs connected to the trial lawyers, labor unions, and environmental activists.

      But it’s almost all for show – “sound and fury, signifying nothing,” as a somewhat notable bard once wrote. The McCain campaign badly miscalculated the voting public’s interest and depth of commitment to campaign finance “reform,” and their assumption that their financial disadvantage would be offset enough by some nonexistent reservoir of support for a candidate who was free of so-called “special interest” money quite likely led to their losing not just a few swing states like Iowa, Ohio, and Colorado, but reliably “red” states like Indiana and North Carolina. It turned what would likely have been a close election (at least in terms of electoral votes) into a blowout for the guy who ignored the “reform” mantra and chose instead to raise all the money he needed to compete and get his message out to voters.

      So, I?d say it didn?t work out to well for him.

      Sean Parnell
      President
      Center for Competitive Politics
      http://www.campaignfreedom.org

      • jcincy

        And this is what happens when an ancient, out-of-touch GOP senator runs for the White House.

        McCain and Dole ran their presidential campaigns as if they were attempting to pass populist legislation in the senate. They treated their presidential opponents with the same “respect” that they would their colleagues in the pompous upper chamber.

      • eburke

        I will take exception to the “McCain pounced quickly and hard” on this issue. Like everything else in the campaign, Johnny brought this up a few times and then dropped it after some half-hearted attempts at hanging it around Obama’s neck. Fit perfectly into his “Well, let’s not rock the boat and get anyone really upset here” Senate ‘collegiality’.

        Funny how Obama’s ‘collegiality’ didn’t prevent him from trashing McCain at every turn, lying to him, and not only rejecting the system, but by also subverting it be removing all verification techonology from his compaign websites.

        Hmmmm…now I wonder why he would’ve done that?

  • redneck_hippie

    Question: “One of the excuses offered is that Barack Obama refused to authorize a personal pitch under his name. And if Democrats are quick to point out something so embarrassing, they must be hurting.”

    Are we to infer that Obama denied using his imprimatur because it was a given that the fundraiser wouldn’t raise enough and would be embarrassing to The One?

    Oh. I just made a typo. I typed The Once. Freudian slip signifying that The One is only good for Once? I pray, I pray…

    Anyway, low fundraising figures are fantastic news for us. At this point I am not going to quibble over the cause and all the other things going on.

    At least when it comes to this one dinner, WE WON!!!

    Glass half full, guys, glass half full.

    • penguin2

      I have to correct it almost every time.

      I like the half full glass analogy, no one ever wins thinking they’ll lose. In fact, I believe McCain lost, because he really never seemed to want the presidency badly enough.

      • redneck_hippie

        I was AWOL at the time, but from what others say,Reagan radiated this, and his winning was probably at least 50% attitude.

        Me, I vacillate wildly between pollyannaism and currmudgeoneosity. Hey, with a split personality I fit in with both crowds.

        • redneck_hippie
  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    ..which will only massively increase with all the taxpayer funds going into the pockets of the unions because of this year’s legislation (and coerced bankruptcy deals), who will cycle it back to Democratic candidates.

    And if EFCA passes, the unions will have a tsunami of campaign cash. Not to mention the Vichy corporations under the government thumb who will be collaborating with the Democrats/Obama from this point on.