What are the Q2 fundraising numbers you are most excited to learn?
For those of us who track money in politics, FEC filing deadlines are red-letter days. After months of speculation and prognostication and expectation-setting, we will finally be able to dive into real data and get our first look at the financial strength of the 2016 candidates. And the way that will be measured in this race will be different than in any other. For the first time, every top White House contender has a personalized super PAC that can raise unlimited donations from individuals and corporations. That makes big money more central than ever.
Sign up for The Daily 202, The Washington Post’s new political tipsheet
Some of the questions I’m eager to answer: Does the pro-Jeb Bush group break $100 million? How far behind are the super PACs backing Marco Rubio and Scott Walker? Do any surprise billionaire super PAC patrons emerge? How successfully has Hillary Clinton built up a small donor base – and how does hers compare to that of Bernie Sanders? And on the spending side, it will be fascinating to compare the early burn rates. How much are the top strategists making, and who has staff in which states?
There will be a lot of comparisons in coming weeks between how much candidates raised during April, May and June compared to how much they raised in 2011 or 2007. How much stock should we put in such comparisons? Why is that like comparing apples to oranges?
There is no recent corollary to the current state of presidential fundraising. This time around, many White House contenders have put a premium on raising money for their super PACs before announcing their bids. That means we can expect to see lopsided totals, with super PAC hauls surpassing those of the official campaigns. The campaign committee totals in this first fundraising quarter will likely be substantially smaller than those posted in first real fundraising quarter of 2007, for example, when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both raised close to $26 million, Mitt Romney posted nearly $21 million and Rudy Giuliani pulled in $14.6 million.
George W. Bush raised nearly $29 million in his first quarter as a presidential candidate in 1999. That spooked John Kasich, who withdrew from the race. Jeb Bush is expected to raise around $100 million, but his haul has not spooked Kasich this time. He’ll announce on July 21. It hasn’t scared anyone else either. Why do you think that is?
One fascinating development we’re seeing is that as campaign finance restrictions have loosened, money has in some ways become less determinative than in past races. Because of the primacy of wealthy donors and the potential in online fundraising, the donor universe has expanded. It’s no longer the case that one well-connected candidate can lock up a party’s top bundlers and freeze out his or her rivals. Now, a presidential aspirant with one deep-pocketed patron or a passionate small donor base can stay alive for quite a long time. As we’ve written, the escalating financial arms race could fuel a protracted GOP primary season similar to the one in 2012 — exactly what party leaders were hoping to avoid.
Super PACs don’t technically need to file their numbers until July 31. Do you think some might “coincidentally” release them in tandem with the campaigns they were set up to support? What are the advantages to doing so?
There’s no question. Super PACs are functioning as de facto extensions of the official campaigns this time around. And since many of the candidates have invested their energy this spring into bringing in big checks for their allied super PACs rather than official campaign committees, the hauls by those groups will be viewed as a measure of their success in the money race.
Read more PowerPost
It’s worth noting, however, that the unlimited contributions that flow into super PACs are not as valuable as small-dollar donations that go directly to a campaign. That money is not only directly controlled by the candidates and his or her team, but it can go a lot further than that of outside groups, since candidates can buy television advertising at a much cheaper rate.
We’ve heard a lot about staff turnover at Priorities USA, the pro-Clinton super PAC. Guy Cecil, the newish head of the group, just replaced the finance director, the latest in a string of shake-ups. How much do you think that has impacted their fundraising?
The retooling at Priorities reflects a sense of urgency by Clinton’s allies that they need to get more competitive in the super PAC game. Democratic donors have been historically reluctant to write these kind of checks – a distaste that made it difficult for Priorities to fundraise in the 2012 race, when it was supporting President Obama. There is a more pragmatic attitude this time around, but earlier this spring, big givers did not have a clear sense that Clinton wanted them to back the super PAC. The arrival of Cecil, who was a key player on Clinton’s 2008 campaign, was meant to send a strong signal that donors should step up. But the dynamics are tricky: Clinton has made reducing the influence of big money in politics one of the planks of her bid this time. There is sensitivity among her allies of having a super PAC raise more money than by her actual campaign in this first quarter.
Campaigns love to brag about how many contributors they had who gave $200 or less. Hillary Clinton’s team has said that she’s working hard to cultivate such donors. Why do candidates care so much about building this kind of donor network?
President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns demonstrated the power of a small donor operation. If you can get thousands — or millions! — of people to give you $25 again and again, you have a rich, self-replenishing funding resource (and one that requires much less of the candidate’s time than those pricey fundraising dinners). And it also offers a way to demonstrate your success among grassroots activists. More than 60,000 donors gave money to Clinton during her first fundraising quarter in the 2008 race. We’re sure to see her campaign make a big deal of the number of individual contributors supporting her this time around.
Stay tuned to Matea’s coverage for answers to these questions and more. You should also follow her on Twitter.