« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Question and… more Questions time: were the DNC’s June fund-raising numbers over-estimated? [UPDATE: No, but not 100% no]

This one I'll call a "Guide to the Perplexed," but only because I'm one of them.

{Updated here. Short version: not quite a nothingburger, but they have the money.}

Q. So, what’s going on?

A. The Democrats seem not to have as much money as somebody told us that they have.

Q. Excuse me?

A. Yup. Specifically, the Democratic National Committee. As per the FEC Disclosure form for June, which has finally gone up, they have only $4.53 million in the bank, and raised only $7.59 million last month.

Q. Hold on. Didn’t they claim…

A. $22.5 million raised, $20.3 million in the bank? Yup. See here and here. At the time, I accepted the numbers myself, as did everybody else on the planet.

Q. So, why the discrepancy?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Excuse me?

A. No, really: I don’t know. There doesn’t seem to be any explanation for it.

Q. Hey! What about something like those State Victory Party things that the GOP has?

A. That was my first thought, but I don’t think that it works. If you look here, back when I reported on McCain’s fund-raising numbers the campaign reported that McCain had $22 million raised and $26.7 million cash on hand. There was also another $8 million-plus in State Victory Party money… which would explain why the numbers from the FEC are under those of Opensecrets. The latter is including the State Party Victory money in the running total cash on hand.

Q. So?

A. So, if the Democrats have something similar, OpenSecrets would have included it in Obama’s or the DNC’s totals, too. They didn’t: Obama’s FEC and OpenSecrets numbers pretty much match.

Q. Which means?

A. One of three things:

1). Somebody over-reported the DNC’s June numbers to ABC News. To the tune of almost $15 million dollars collected, and almost $16 million cash on hand.

2). Somebody under-reported the DNC’s June numbers to the FEC, for the same amount.

3). There’s a revenue stream that I’m missing. If that’s true, it’s not easily found.

Q. So why is this so important?

A. It’s important because if the DNC doesn’t have the money on hand that was reported earlier, the dynamics of the race actually have not shifted the way we assumed that they had.

Q. Not shifted?

A. It goes like this. The RNC is McCain’s backstop: this year, it’s White House first, everything else second. They fully intend to micro-target important Congressional and Senatorial races, but the primary objective for them is winning the Presidency. We’ve known this for a while, which is why everybody talks in terms of McCain having $104.37 million to deal with, not $35.64 million. And he can and will be using that cash all the way up to the convention, because he knows that he’s got $87 million to run with once it’s over. So he’s already budgeted for $200 million, and expecting $50 million a month from the RNC for the next four months is actually reasonable.

The DNC, contrariwise, has been an albatross around the Democratic Party’s neck up to this point: the reports that it actually got its act together relieved many on the Left. To get $400 million between now and October, Obama/the DNC needs to gather either $77 million a month (assuming $92 million cash on hand), or $81 million (assuming $76 million). Not much of a difference… except that if the DNC did not raise $20 million dollars last month then Senator Obama is going to have to make up that difference himself. Put another way: the $20 million dollars / month revenue stream is necessary for Obama to achieve a rough parity with McCain/the RNC. A $7 million / month from the DNC will require him to break his existing fund-raising records for four months straight in order to make up for it. And the margin between what he needs and what he gets is going to be the margin that the RNC can use on legislative races.

Put another way, $92 million vs $104 million was good news for the Democrats: it indicated that they could reasonably hope to collect enough money to make up for the lack of public financing. $72 million vs $104 million wasn’t: it indicated that they were still struggling to catch up. It was better news for the Obama campaign – let’s not forget that he broke $50 million, which he really needed to do – but much less so for the rest of his Party.

Q. Unless there’s a revenue stream that you haven’t found?

A. Unless there’s a revenue stream that I haven’t found. The problem with that scenario is that the only argument that I’ve come up with so far that there might be one is that I cannot quite believe that I am the first person in Western civilization to have noticed this discrepancy…

COMMENTS

  • edm

    Well, this is something.

  • blooch

    I’m not a money guy, but something’s hinky here behind door #3:

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlasshrugs/obamasforeign_contributions/

  • jeanie

    right down to their candidate, it appears that accuracy is not necessary. Now, if I were a cynic, I might make the assumption that lying is their habit.

  • IJB

    If the DNC purposely misreported their numbers to the public, isn’t that essentially fraud?

    Can’t they be busted for that?! (Or at least fined, after Nov.?)

    Between this, and the narrowing margins (in favor of the GOP) we’re starting to see in many Senate and House races, things are suddenly starting to get interesting…

  • walter_hanson

    Okay:

    We know that people haven’t wanted to give to Mccain because they might not like him. The republican party isn’t getting donations because they think they don’t have their priorties straight.

    Yet what is causing the Democrats problems? Aren’t their people ethustiatic about their chances of winning the Presidency and getting larger majorties in the house and senate?

    One theory I have and maybe it will take somebody with lots of time in 2009 with the reports from previous years to compare it, but I think the Obama-Clinton race sucked money from lots of other Democrat groups and candidates. After all if Obama raised 50 million easily, but the Democrat party raised just eight million. That adds up to $58 million which is roughly what the Republicans will raise. Keep in mind with Obama begging for money for the general election money which has historically gone to other candidates will go to Obama instead. Every dollar Obama raises since the Democrat convention is a dollar you expected to logically have been given to a Democrat candidate or liberal pac in the past.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • Flagstaff

    I think it may be against the law to lie on FEC disclosure forms.

    Either way is good for us. Better if they actually don’t have the money.

  • WOSG

    I agree with the point that $500 million so far for Obama and Clinton is a huge huge amount, and it may have tapped out the donors.

    Meanwhile, the GOP side is hundreds of millions less invested, and McCain goes with public financing and get $85 million or so.

    Cash on hand is now at parity, and if the RNC+McCain can raise $80m more in the cycle, then even if Obama is at $40m/month going forward, the teams are at parity overall.
    So Obama needs at least $200m+ to have any meaningful fundraising advantage.

    Which in turn means even more oxygen sucked from other races. Let the GOP donors go state level and RNC and other races.

    While the PACs and special interests are leaning heavy to the Dems due to them owning Congress, I think the GOP wallets will open more as the realization of BHO as Pres hits home. For anyone with investments it will be a real and serious financial hit to weather Obama’s tax increases on cap gains etc. Investing in McCain will have positive ROI.

    Bottom line: We’ve weathered a Storm of huge fundraising disadvantage into a situation of likely marginal-to-no disadvantage.

    DNC woes is icing on the cake.

  • Flagstaff

    About $15 million?

    Maybe it was diverted? Into a Clinton account, perhaps? There has to be one to keep Bill quiet, and another to help pay off Hillary’s campaign debts. I know $15 million wouldn’t be enough, but Bill has demands NOW, and so does Hillary, so perhaps they accepted a discount.

  • RedFox84

    First there was the surprising story that $35mil that Obama raised in one day (turned out all the small donations in June were accounted for at the end of the month, rather than on the day received). But now there’s $20 million MISSING from the DNC?

    So what happened? Someone forget to carry the one and a few zeros somewhere along the line?

  • walter_hanson

    You know one thing that can be said about 2006 was that it opened my eyes to not wanting to have a second disaster.

    It was bad enough for us to lose the Senate and the House, but in Minnesota we lost the state house by such a horrible margin when six members of our party deserted us we had a 6.6 billion dollar gas + other tax shoved down our throats.

    So this year several months ago even though I’m hurt financially worse than I was in 2006 I started giving a little money every paycheck. I’ve already given money to 14 US Senate candidates, 19 US House candidates, and nine candidates for the state legislature, not to mention pacs and other conservative groups. Far more than I did this time in 2006. It adds up to a little than $600 but if there is just a million of us doing that will mean more than $600 million for those precious races.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • Moe_Lane

    Seems only fair to contact the DNC (once somebody’s actually there to brush me off) and find out what happened.

  • ss396

    There is no one to fine the DNC. There is no quorum sitting on the FEC, so they have no authority to do anything.

  • Pentagon16

    since four months ago, that no matter how much money Barack had in hand, they would just spend whatever they want.

    why would they care if they go into debt by 15 or 20 million? Hillary did it and so what? who would even know with the way they account for their money?

    I have no doubt that Obama will NOT raise twice as much as McCain, but at the same time he will get someone to whip out their credit card and then worry about the debt after he is the POTUS..

    not sure what can be done to stop this scenario..

  • Pentagon16

    since four months ago, that no matter how much money Barack had in hand, they would just spend whatever they want.

    why would they care if they go into debt by 15 or 20 million? Hillary did it and so what? who would even know with the way they account for their money?

    I have no doubt that Obama will NOT raise twice as much as McCain, but at the same time he will get someone to whip out their credit card and then worry about the debt after he is the POTUS..

    not sure what can be done to stop this scenario..