Sunday, September 27, 2009

Democrats' Fundraising Woes

Largely due to the very limited assault Democrats have made against Corporate abuse of power and wealth, Democratic fundraising committees are having difficulty raising campaign funds.

corruption Democratic political committees have seen a decline in their fundraising fortunes this year, a result of complacency among their rank-and-file donors and a de facto boycott by many of their wealthiest givers, who have been put off by the party's harsh rhetoric about big business.

The trend is a marked reversal from recent history, in which Democrats have erased the GOP's long-standing fundraising advantage. In the first six months of 2009, Democratic campaign committees' receipts have dropped compared with the same period two years earlier.

The vast majority of those declines were accounted for by the absence of large donors who, strategists say, have shut their checkbooks in part because Democrats have heightened their attacks on the conduct of major financial firms and set their sights on rewriting the laws that regulate their behavior.

As the battle over President Obama's effort to overhaul the health-care system reached a fever pitch this summer, the three national Republican committees combined to bring in $1.7 million more than their Democratic counterparts in August. The pair of Democratic committees tasked with raising money for House and Senate candidates -- and doing so at a time when the party holds its strongest position on Capitol Hill in a generation -- have watched their receipts plummet by a combined 20 percent with little more than a year to go before the November 2010 midterm elections.

Large-scale defeats in the midterms could be a crippling blow to the ambitious agenda mapped out by Obama's top advisers, particularly if they happen in the Senate, where Democrats caucus with a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority. The party will have to work furiously to defend at least six Senate seats and as many as 40 in the House, including many snatched from Republicans.

"If they take them back, this is the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do," Vice President Biden said Monday at a fundraiser for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), whose district was held by a Republican for more than two decades before her 2006 victory…  [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

So here’s the problem.  The only reason Democrats got as much corporate funding as they did is that the Bush/GOP regime was so totally incompetent and corrupt that they were going down.  Corporations, like rats deserting a sinking ship, invested in Democratic campaigns in an attempt (largely successful, damn it) to buy access.  But the super rich would prefer doing business with the GOP, because they can count on Republicans to favor them at the expense of the American people.  At the same time, the Democrats’ progressive base has become less generous, because many are turned off by Democratic foot-dragging on core progressive issues.

Do what are Democratic politicians to do?  Should they cave-in to the GOP in the hope of restoring that financing, or should they pursue the progressive agenda that attracted so much grass roots giving?

In my opinion, the only times Democrats can out-raise Republicans from the wealthy corporate set are when Democratic victories are virtually assured in advance.  Otherwise they will always the GOP for their willingness to sell out America in favor of corporate greed.  On the other hand, it was the progressive wing of the Democratic party that opened our hearts and wallets to Democrats in both 2006 and 2008 and hit the streets in support of Democratic candidates.  Without these people Democrats could not have won the majorities they now hold.  Democrats would be wise to dance with the folks that brought them and write off corporate money that they won’t get anyway.  Democrats should pursue the progressive agenda that matters to the people who put them into office.  If they fail to do so, they are fools.

14 comments:

Infidel753 said...

They certainly need to take a different tack than they're doing now. With such dominance of both Houses plus the Presidency, they can't even get a public option through -- what's the motivation to even vote for them, much less contribute money?

Oso said...

I think it was Bill Maher who said that nobody votes for Democrats these days,they vote against Republicans.

Distributorcap said...

two things

the democrats have been just plain awful for 10 months - the only saving them is that the republicans are worse.

much worse

second - wait till the supreme court rules on the Hillary movie case - and makes corporations people

it's all over then

glad you are back... finally catching up with you

the walking man said...

Time to dip into the war chests left over and perhaps campaign the old fashioned way...you know door to door and baby kissing.

Jack Jodell said...

I wonder how some of those thin-skinned wealthy donors who have already bought out many members of both parties anyway would like it if the federal government started cutting back on contributions to THEM by reducing or eliminating their many precious subsidies?

RealityZone said...

the banksters and the globalized corps. already gave at the office. their guy is in. the ordinary people that donated money are now disenchanted, and already disenfranchised.unless this regime can turn this economy around, he will be a one termer.

benjibopper said...

sound strategy, and the right thing to do. corporation and state shouldn't mix.

RealityZone said...

RE; " corporation and state shouldn't mix." i agree, but they have been joined at the hip for a very long time. the [MIC] is their pilot. we have been existing under a one party system for a long time. and that system is [ Fascism ]---they select so we may elect---

ivan said...

Obama was clever enough to get campagn funds almost out of thin air.
Democrats might have to micromanage for funding, like Obama.

Vigilante said...

Disaffected Democrats should ask themselves what Karl Rove would do if he were wearing Democratic shoes. My guess he would just double-down and do more politicking. The last thing he would do is talk about bolting the party.

TomCat said...

Welcome infidel. Good question. My only reply is to ask you to consider the state of affairs were the Repuglians in control of both.

LOL, Oso. And right he is. There's a Maher vid up today.

DC, I agree an both counts. Thanks!

Mark, real grass roots, just like you say.

Benji, right on, except make it should stop mixing.

RZ, fascist plutocracy.

He was, Ivan. Corporate money didn't really come in until the outcome was already clear.

Vig, I agree. The Democratic party may be a swamp, but it's our job to drain it.

TomCat said...

Jack, sorry I missed you. Gerat idea!!

Vigilante said...

Perfect:

The Democratic party may be a swamp, but it's our job to drain it.

TomCat said...

Vig, I almost remamed the blog as "Drain the Swamp", but PP has too much name recognition to give it up.