Democratic House and Senate candidates may not be pulling in as much as Republicans from the special-interest groups spending millions on this year’s election, but the Democrats are doing well raising money through their own campaign operations, new fundraising reports released this week show.
Incumbent Senate Democrats, including those most threatened with losing their seats, were able to outraise their challengers. And even some Democratic challengers — Rep. Shelley Berkley in Nevada and Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts — were able to raise more than the Republican incumbents they are facing.
Democrats will need the money. Groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which heavily favors the GOP, and other overtly Republican groups are dominating spending on television advertising, an advantage they are expected to keep through the fall.
In the House, a dozen Democratic challengers in the most competitive races raised more than the incumbents they are battling. Only four Republican challengers did the same.
Overall, the parties are essentially tied in recent fundraising for the most competitive House races. But those races include more incumbent Republican lawmakers, who have more money in the bank for the fall.
In the end, the two parties will be competitive in fundraising, with Republicans benefitting from more interest group spending and Democrats raising more for their campaigns, said David Wasserman, the House race editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.
“Money only matters a great deal when one side doesn’t have it,” Wasserman said.
Democrats have tried to make a political point about spending by interest groups like the chamber, arguing that the big campaign checks those groups accept could lead to corruption. Democrats in the Senate voted twice this week to require the groups to disclose their donors but failed to overcome Republican procedural objections.
At the same time, the Democratic Party has been raising big checks of its own through two super PACs, groups that can accept large donations and corporate money. The Majority PAC and the House Majority PAC raised a combined $10 million in the second quarter from rich liberals and unions.
Some of the most generous supporters include longtime Democratic donor Fred Eychaner, who has given a combined $1.3 million to the groups, and S. Donald Sussman, husband of Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine. Sussman, a hedge-fund founder who recently bought a majority share of MaineToday Media, which owns the Portland Press Herald, has given $1 million to the House fund.
Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson donated $5 million to House Republicans through the Young Guns Action Fund, a super PAC linked to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., according to a filing released this week.
Much of the spending on the Republican side is by groups that are not required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission, including the chamber, which this week reported spending $1.2 million on four Senate races.
One of the biggest campaign fundraising disparities showed up in the Florida race for Senate. Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson raised $1.8 million in the second quarter, more than double the $840,000 brought in by his presumed Republican opponent, Rep. Connie Mack.
But that gap in resources was erased by a single $1 million check that Adelson cut in June to a super PAC backing Mack.
Mack has already benefited from millions spent by interest groups on his behalf, including a recent ad from Americans for Prosperity. The ad said it was time to “send a message to Nelson” for voting to support economic stimulus funding and the Democrats’ signature health-care law.
However, that advertising comes before voters have really tuned into the race, and Nelson’s incumbency advantage has given him time to build a fat bank account. His campaign has $11 million on hand for the fall, compared with $1.4 million held by Mack.
Democrats note that, while they face spending by Republican super PACs, there are advantages in spending money through their campaigns, including cheaper television advertising rates mandated by federal law.
Aaron Blake contributed to this report.
© 2012, The Washington Post.
Because of the structure of influence that we have allowed to develop, the tiniest fraction of the one percent have the effective power to block reform desired by the 99-plus percent. A tiny number of Americans — .26 percent — give more than $200 to a congressional campaign. .05 percent give the maximum amount to any congressional candidate. .01 percent give more than $10,000 in any election cycle. And .000063 percent — 196 Americans — have given more than 80 percent of the super-PAC money spent in the presidential elections so far.
The $ in=kind more than the democrats could ever /get in any other way!! CRY CRY theu have the largest special interest group funding The network TV should be made to give a $ value to their contribution!
Wow I didn’t liberals would actually use their own money to buy elections and votes. Usually they just use taxpayer money as entitlements to buy votes
Thank you Chellie for bringing this rich, money-launderer to our state and allowing him to thrust his liberal wackiness down our throats with his endless supply of money stolen from investors.
And what about George Soros’ most recent donation through a Super Pac? Does that not deserve notation? Not to worry–the liberals have more than the conservatives, for certain, but they know how to keep it undercover.
It seems very unAmerican to be spending so much on campaigns in the first place, since the average American is having to struggle with food and gas prices going up. Give everyone a cap on what can be spent, so keeping a budget might be beneficial to all.
Wonder if this David Wasserman is related to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz–hhhhmmmmmmmm!
“Liberals have more than conservatives.” False. Factually inaccurate. Did you see Mr. Adelson in the article? Check out my numbers below. Out of the 196, well over 50% are donators to conservative PAC’s.
Really well Mr. Sussman was one of the folks who got a huge amout of NOBAMA bailout money from taxpayers. Well I guess we see what he is doing with that money buying 3 newspapers and spending money to buy elections including his wife’s seat so he can get more kickbacks.
“Democrats note that, while they face spending by Republican super PACs, there are advantages in spending money through their campaigns, including cheaper television advertising rates mandated by federal law.”
Of course!
Politicians always do themselves favors like that.
How obnoxious.
Shocking I say, just shocking! Pingree has unlimited personal funding thanks to her husband., what a surprise!
I will bet the Cherokee Indians aren’t donating
to Liarhontas in Mass. Most of her money is
coming from Hollywood. Actually both sides
have money coming in from outside sources but
to make it sound like one and not the other is
to be pittied is ludicrous. Any election in any state
attracts money from all over on both sides. Take
a look at the overall Pacs and where they come from
and it may amaze you how many of these are associated
with organizations who are loaded.