Democrats Discovering Campaign Law's Cost

[aerocontrols]

It more and more looks like their funding is going to dry up, as the biggest donors (who primarily give to Democrats) are now capped at $95k per person in soft money, and the Republicans have a traditional advantage among people who give less.

The study, analyzing donations during the 2002 campaign cycle, found that those little guys giving less than $200 to federal candidates, parties or leadership political action committees contributed 64 percent of their money to Republicans. By contrast, those fat cats giving $1 million or more contributed a lopsided 92 percent to Democrats. The only group favoring Democrats, in fact, were contributors giving more than $100,000.

"The findings illustrate the Republicans' strong advantage over Democrats in the current system," the center concluded. That's for sure. With the McCain-Feingold law capping total contributions at $95,000 per person, the Democrats are plain out of luck.

Where will the Democrats get the money to be competitive now that they can no longer accept $2 million checks from big donors?

My prediction is that the donors will give the money to Left-leaning advocacy groups to run issue ads, (or set up their own groups) which will either be (illegally) directed by the DNC, or will be uncontrolled by the DNC, thus leading them towards the extremes.

MattJ

 

[gnome]

It more and more looks like their funding is going to dry up, as the biggest donors (who primarily give to Democrats) are now capped at $95k per person in soft money, and the Republicans have a traditional advantage among people who give less.



Where will the Democrats get the money to be competitive now that they can no longer accept $2 million checks from big donors?

My prediction is that the donors will give the money to Left-leaning advocacy groups to run issue ads, (or set up their own groups) which will either be (illegally) directed by the DNC, or will be uncontrolled by the DNC, thus leading them towards the extremes.

MattJ

I say, good. I tend to side with Democrats often but I'm not going to cry for their loss of funding by special interests. Perhaps they can clear up their message if there's not so much money at stake.

 

[American]

I accidently read the Boston Globe sometimes. When you read the obituaries each week, the rich people who die get big special write-ups (because they were Beautiful People and poor people who die only get short reviews).

ANYWAY.

There's always some 90+ widow who kicks off, who lived the life of Jackie-O... "The former heiress to such-and-such fortune (hundreds of millions of dollars) ... was a large contributor to many charities..."

Read: "This lazy, soft hypocrite gave away her dead husband's estate and money to the same liberal causes that keep her in luxury and punish ordinary hard-working people." All that old money (made decades ago) doesn't always go to endowments and political causes. Much of it is squandered by the kids on cars and vacations.

I'm NOT bashing the rich, I'm just highlighting the old traditional source of money and power in my state.