House Democrats outraise GOP It’s 1st time minority party gains fundraising edge since ’94 cycle

[bigtree]

WASHINGTON -- Democratic leaders raising money to be spent on the most competitive House races in next year's elections are doing something remarkable: outraising their Republican counterparts, despite a historic drubbing a year ago that left Democrats in the minority.

House Democrats have raised $52.1 million to the Republicans' $48.7 million. The difference is small, but it's significant, given that no minority party has been able to get such an edge in fundraising since the 1994 election cycle.

Reports released last week show that the National Republican Congressional Committee edged out the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in fundraising for October: the NRCC took in $4.5 million compared with the DCCC's $4.1 million, not nearly enough to make up for the DCCC's advantage. The month before, Democrats raised $6.6 million, while Republicans raised $3.8 million.

. . . despite winning a larger percentage of checks from K Street titans and corporate power brokers, House Republicans have not capitalized on their new majority among the grass-roots class of donors. While most political analysts predict the GOP to continue holding power after the 2012 elections, the political cash shortfall could suggest a tougher road ahead than many observers had envisioned.


read more: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_769253.html

[Zorra]

1. The Wisconsin folks and OWS having a positive collateral effect?

Hopefully, we will see Dem favorable electoral results in 2012 similar to or even better than the results we saw this past Nov 8.
:thumbsup:

[Fumesucker]

2. More money in politics is certainly a positive thing.. n/t

[bigtree]

3. without substantial campaign reform, your sentiment is just surrender

[Fumesucker]

4. And with more money going into politics campaign reform is further away than ever..

:shrug:

[bigtree]

5. you're positing a false dichotomy

you should know well that unilateral restrictions on fundraising amount to surrender. There isn't any rational reason for Democrats to adhere to some notion of campaign finance reform if the opposition is just going to continue to raise money and ignore the unilateral restraint. So it's just false to imply that Democrats are somehow participating in something that's antithetical to the reforms they seek. We don't seek campaign reform for just Democrats. That's not reform, it's surrender.

[Fumesucker]

6. How does more money going into politics lead to getting money out of politics?

More politicians beholden to more big money interests doesn't give a path I can rationally believe to the publicly funded campaigns we really need.

[bigtree]

7. so you're playing dumb

I personally have no need to explain the facts of life to you. You have my response.

[Fumesucker]

8. And you're dodging a legitimate question..

How does more money in politics lead to getting money out of politics?

[bigtree]

10. It doesn't

. . . but elections have the potential to change the campaign finance landscape, for better or worse. So, you're faced, right now, with a choice of electing a party that has already made numerous proposals to reform campaign finance (the most notable struck down by the Supreme Court), as opposed to the overwhelming majority of republicans who have unanimously rejected most attempts to change the laws. You're not going to reform campaign finance by unilaterally adhering to a notion that the opposition ignores and takes advantage of. Campaign finance reform is ultimately going to be decided by deliberations in Congress, not by some unilateral gesture by the House Democratic Campaign Committee.

[Romulox]

9. Hooray! The Corporate Moneymen are here...to save us all, naturally. nt

[bigtree]

11. like it or not, it will take money to elect folks to Congress this cycle

. . . even progressives.

Kinda ignorant to pretend or posture otherwise.

[Romulox]

12. Hey man. I know. They MADE US do it. nt

[bigtree]

14. deliberately (and unilaterally) underfunding a campaign isn't reform

. . . it's usually a prescription for losing.

I think certain candidates could get away with it, like well-liked incumbents or a firebrand reformer, perhaps who makes it their plank, like Wellstone did. A longshot, uphill way to run right now, though, with republicans taking advantage of unlimited, unaccountable money available and legal to spend on advertising.

[Zorra]

13. Exactly. It is what it is, until OWS can change it.

Until then, Democrats are always better than republicans, and they cannot get elected unless they have money to campaign with.