RNC cash lead: largest in over a decade

[fent]

Despite a lackluster showing in 2005 elections for the GOP, the Republican National Committee raked in better than $100 million last year and enjoys its largest cash-on-hand lead over its Democratic counterpart in more than a decade.

For the year just passed, the RNC brought in nearly $102 million -- give or take a few hundred thousand -- and had $34 million in the bank. The Democratic National Committee raised $51 million in 2005 but showed $5.5 million on hand at the end of the year.

That cash disparity, which has led to grumbling and fretting by some people in the Democratic establishment, will be a major asset come November, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman argued.

"There's no question it's an advantage," he said. "We are in a position to be able to maintain majorities in the House and Senate by providing campaigns with the resources they need to be successful." Under campaign finance laws, the RNC can make unlimited transfers of campaign cash to other Republican national committees.

The Democrats -- led by DNC Chairman Howard Dean -- spent considerable resources in 2005 on resuscitating state parties and now have operatives on the ground in all 50 states. The party also made a successful investment in helping fund efforts to elect Democrat Timothy M. Kaine governor of Virginia.

SOURCE (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012101057_pf.html)

[CNYSkinFan]

The whole money thing is a little worrisome to me as well. But if the fundraising sources tapped in 2004 can be retapped in 2006 then the DNC can raise enough money oto be competitive. But this is quite a large deficit to make up for. BUt the article is right, there is more fo a national presence in the local state parties and a sense that they are not out there on their own, as was the case under McCauliff (whihc ironically is from Syracuse.)

[PennSkinsFan]

There gonna need and they know it. Gosh, even are hard core GOp here in Harrisburg do not feel that great about the Partya nd its future right now.

[Spence]

What else is new? The GOP always out-raises and outspends the Dems. That's not going to change any time soon. It is only more pronounced when the GOP controls every branch of the federal government. If there is one thing the GOP does well it is raise money from wealthy special interests. They can't balance the books or invade the right countries, but they sure as hell can raise a ton of cash. Guys like this one help a lot.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I heard an interesting stat the other day. 96% of Americans don't donate to either political party.

[fent]

I heard an interesting stat the other day. 96% of Americans don't donate to either political party.

i find that hard to believe having worked in this field...maybe i could believe that that many donate less than the amount required for disclosure or that they're not counting those that donate to specific candidates rather than the party in general.

[dj_stouty]

This may be an off-topic question...maybe not.

Every year, when I get my taxes done at HR, they ask if I want to donate a dollar to some political fund. They tell me it doesn't hurt/help my refund, so I always say; "what the hell...sure".

What am I giving to?

[CNYSkinFan]

This may be an off-topic question...maybe not.

Every year, when I get my taxes done at HR, they ask if I want to donate a dollar to some political fund. They tell me it doesn't hurt/help my refund, so I always say; "what the hell...sure".

What am I giving to?
Someone I am sure will correct me if I am wrong but you are giving to the public financing fund for Presidential candidates. THough a majority of the money goes to the 2 national party candidates if they agree to the raising and spending limitations some of the m=inor candidates get smaller amounts.

[fent]

This may be an off-topic question...maybe not.

Every year, when I get my taxes done at HR, they ask if I want to donate a dollar to some political fund. They tell me it doesn't hurt/help my refund, so I always say; "what the hell...sure".

What am I giving to?

that goes to public funding of the presidential campaigns. any party that receives 5% of the vote nationally in a presidential election is eligible for public funding. the 2 big parties turn it down because they can raise substantially more in private donations than the public funding provides.

[dj_stouty]

that goes to public funding of the presidential campaigns. any party that receives 5% of the vote nationally in a presidential election is eligible for public funding. the 2 big parties turn it down because they can raise substantially more in private donations than the public funding provides.

Ok...well then I'm not doing it this year! ;)

[CNYSkinFan]

that goes to public funding of the presidential campaigns. any party that receives 5% of the vote nationally in a presidential election is eligible for public funding. the 2 big parties turn it down because they can raise substantially more in private donations than the public funding provides.

To be fair That only happened this last cycle. Public financing used to be sacrosanct. In fact their was a morality to it. But Bush decided to forgo public financing and so Kerry followed. I believe and I may be wrong Bush forewent public financing and Gore took it, severly handicapping him in 2000.

[akhhorus]

This may be an off-topic question...maybe not.

Every year, when I get my taxes done at HR....

You get your taxes done here at HailRedskins? Wow, thats showing a lot of faith in your fellow mods....

[fent]

To be fair That only happened this last cycle. Public financing used to be sacrosanct. In fact their was a morality to it. But Bush decided to forgo public financing and so Kerry followed. I believe and I may be wrong Bush forewent public financing and Gore took it, severly handicapping him in 2000.

i think that you're correct on the 2000 stats, i don't think bush was the first to pass on public financing, however.

[RedskinsDave]

You get your taxes done here at HailRedskins? Wow, thats showing a lot of faith in your fellow mods....

It's awesome. The thread is called "fun with numbers" and is usually in the apache forum.

[Agrawog]

The saddest thing about this statistic is that the equation that more money = electoral wins seems to work. otherswise why would people bother right?

Are we really so sad, shallow and apathetic a voting public that we simply vote for the people we see the most on tv? Are enough people convinced by spin ads that are bought by the parties that the equation is really that simple?

I would hope not but it sure seems that our country operates on this fairly simple maxim. No wonder so many worthy candidates choose not to run. I am completely diheartened just thinking about this stuff.

Ugh!!

[Booser]

The saddest thing about this statistic is that the equation that more money = electoral wins seems to work. otherswise why would people bother right?

Are we really so sad, shallow and apathetic a voting public that we simply vote for the people we see the most on tv? Are enough people convinced by spin ads that are bought by the parties that the equation is really that simple?

I would hope not but it sure seems that our country operates on this fairly simple maxim. No wonder so many worthy candidates choose not to run. I am completely diheartened just thinking about this stuff.

Ugh!!

i agree with you - it is sad. but often these guys are marketing to the lowest common denominator with a vote.
i'm on the other side of the aisle, but i always wonder the same thing about Rolling Stone Mag. It spews venom at Bush/the right and champions Al Gore's wackiness - right on the front page of a music magazine. I find myself wondering... do kids really get take their political cues from a music magazine?
i'm afraid that they do (it obviously sells) and i'm afraid of what that says about us.