Republican Party -- Over a million donations??

[Bread and Circus]

I recently made a point that although the Dean and Clark
campaigns are raising a lot of grassroots money, the candidates
are not really talking about campaign finance reform.

The Deanies angrily shot back at me "$15,000,000, 150,000
donors, $86 avg. donation -- there's your campaign reform".

I argued back that although internet fundraising is great it
is no assurance that things are going to get better unless
the candidates take campaign finance reform, and corruption
in politics in general, head-on.

Here's an example and should give us all food for thought...


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=18&u=/ap/20031001/ap_on_el_ge/republican_donors


excerpt:

Republicans Log Over a Million New Donors
Wed Oct 1, 5:02 PM ET Add Politics - AP to My Yahoo!


By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The donations aren't all that big — most under $30 — but the number of people contributing to the Republican Party is a milestone: more than 1 million new donors since President Bush (news - web sites) took office.



That beats the Republican National Committee (news - web sites)'s previous record of 853,595 first-time donors during President Reagan's two terms in the 1980s. The new contributors in Bush's tenure yielded $55 million for the RNC, spokeswoman Christine Iverson said Wednesday.


"These are not wealthy people," said Iverson, who said the typical donation was under $30. The RNC doesn't know whether the donors gave to Republican candidates in the past, but it was their first time contributing to the national committee, she said.

[Yupster]

1. Democrats need to expect

their supporters to donate something whether it's $ 100 or $ 20. And Democratic supporters need to understand that they have an obligation to give their candidates something.

Every election Republicans get far, far more donations in far smaller increments per average donation than the Democrats. In the last election, far more Tennesseeans donated to Bush than to Gore. That's just horrible.

I'm hopeful that Dean is changing this dynamic. There's no reason why more people shouldn't donate something to the Democratic Party than the Republican.

Less hopeful is the swooning over that Soros guy pledging $ 10 million to the next campaign. I thought the Democrats were for campaign finance reform and taking the big bucks out of politics? I guess it's bad unless it's on your side.

[Flying_Pig]

2. In just two days, during Bush's recent swing through the Mid-West,

the papers stated he raised over $5.6 million dollars. Further, the article was accompanied by a photograph of a smirking Bush, with two smiling, wealthy donors from the group of 1500 that turned out in Chicago to hear his speil. It was enough to ruin my breakfast yesterday.

The point, is that while he may be sinking in the polls, bedeviled by scandal(s), and a corrupt and lying twit, there are still millions of people, many with lots of money, who support this human turd. Unless a scandal hits him that is so severe it cannot be denied or defended, he's going to retain his core.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

3. You know what I'd like to see:

I'd like to see the results of a random sampling of those names being confirmed by direct questioning of the person involved. I wouldn't put it past the right wingers to donate in other people's names to avoid campaign finance laws.

For example - get a list of registered voters, pick a thousand names out of it, and donate 30 dollars each in their name. Do that with a half a million people, and you have 15 million dollars. Mix up the totals a bit ranging from say $5 to $50 or $100 and you are talking some serious money.

Is there any checks on small donors such as this?

[farmbo]

4. If your point is to trivialize Dean's fundraising, I don't get it.

These are contributions to a party, not a candidate, and they cover a two and a half year period for a party which is controlling all three branches of government. That money has already been spent in past campaigns, including the 2002 midterms.

The money which Dean and all the Dems are raising-- added together-- is slightly more than Bush has raised up to this quarter. That's good news.

Its not "good" to see 1 million new small donors for the RNC, but THAT's OUR FAULT!

The Democrats have become beholden to big soft money donors and have totally marginalized the left wing (read: Greens) of their party by pursuing DLC- driven "centrist" (read: BushLite) policies which are in large part indistinguishable from those of the Republicans.

Clunker that it is, were stuck with McCain-Finegold for this election cycle. And politics-- successful politics-- is the art of the Possible.

Dean has shown that it is possible to compete with Bush without soiling himself with the crony- capitalist & lobbyist 'max out' contributors who are bellying up to the bar at Bush's money-orgies.

As for the issue of corruption...listen to Dean's stump speech. He cautions that our Founders warned us about a time when "economic power acquires political power". That is precisely where we are in America today. The solution: It's time for the People to "..take our country back."

This oft-repeated phrase-- already a cliche for we political junkies- says it all.

[Bread and Circus]

5. My point is that....

the Republicans seem to be able to raise
a lot of money in numerous small-dollar donations
just as well, if not better, as we can....

People in the Dean camp have acted like they
were the only ones doing it. But this came along
and I was quite surprised.

I felt a bit vindicated because I argued that Dean's
"you have the power" rhetoric means nothing. Frankly,
he should say "the internet has the power" if he wanted
to be more accurate. I guess I am just skeptical
of his "empowerment" message because he doesn't argue
for real reform and has indicated he might defer federal
matching dollars.

I will grant you that I am a Clark supporter, so my views
are biased. However, I didn't buy into Dean's "empowerment"
theme from the start. Hence, that's why I started to like
Clark.

I do think it's great that Dean, Clark, and the rest are raising
lot's of money in small personal donations for our side.
But does it really change anything? Especially if it seems
that the RNC seems to be outdoing our candidates?

I want real suggestions for how to fix political rot and greed.
Dean doesn't offer that. Neither does Clark. Actually, Clark
has just stopped being a Washington lobbyist, so he is by
no means innocent. Though I am a solid supporter, he has some
explaining to do.

Dean, however, has run his campaign strictly on the "you
have the power" thingy and I don't see how he backs that up
with proposals.

I give all the main candidates an F on this because none
of them seem to be addressing it head on as far as I can see.