Does Campaign Funding Matter?
FL District 8 – the Republican Financial Challenge
By Steve Pickering
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Florida’s 8th Congressional District has raised more money for the 2010 election than all but six other Congressional districts. Over $5,054,102 was raised by June 30th, according to campaign finance reports prepared for the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Unfortunately for Republicans, over $3.5 million of that money was raised by the Democratic incumbent, Alan Grayson. To make matters worse, more than $400,000 of the remainder belonged to two Republicans who are no longer in the race.
So, with less than two weeks before the primary, how do the Republican candidates compare financially? The summary chart below provides a snapshot of each candidate’s campaign finances on June 30th.
| Name | Received | Spent | Cash Avail |
| Fanelli | $43,165 | $41,710 | $1,452 |
| Kelly | $223,275 | $85,299 | $137,975 |
| Long | $220,065 | $110,883 | $109,181 |
| O’Donoghue | $528,092 | $229,622 | $298,470 |
| Sullivan | $56,254 | $47,322 | $8,931 |
| Webster | $240,944 | $75,974 | $164,970 |
Note: No published data was available for Ross Bieling.
What does this mean to Republicans? First, it shows that they have a long way to go in order to become competitive with Mr. Grayson. Naturally, he is not sitting still, having announced a “money bomb” fundraiser for August 23rd, the day before the upcoming primary election. His goal is to collect $300,000 on that one day, in addition to his other fund-raising efforts.
From a financial standpoint, the situation is looking quite grim for the Republican side, but there are some optimistic signs. Bruce O’Donoghue raised over $520,000 in the first five months of his campaign. Daniel Webster, who entered the race at the end of April, raised more than $240,000 in two months. Both men have extensive networks of contacts, and are likely to experience funding surges if they win the primary. Kurt Kelly has also shown strong fund-raising ability. The primary winner can expect financial support from the national and state Republican Party organizations, as well as national organizations with Political Action Committees (PAC’s).
There is one caveat attached to outside funding from PAC’s and party organizations. Typically, these entities fund a candidate using a one-to-one formula that is based on funds already collected by the candidate. In other words, a candidate who has raised $100,000 can expect to receive roughly an additional $100,000. Although Alan Grayson’s stinging attacks on conservatives may increase the funds available to unseat him, the general election candidate should expect a very competitive funding environment.
Although money alone does not create a good candidate, it is the fuel which all political campaign engines require. In the face of the Grayson financial juggernaut, the Republican primary winner will need to shift into fund-raising overdrive to make a credible impact. No matter how good a candidate might be, substantial financial resources will be necessary to create name recognition and spread the candidate’s message.
What can you do to help?
- Vote wisely in the primary. Evaluate each candidate’s ability, platform, and appeal. Pay particular attention to each candidate’s financial performance in the chart above. This is not the year for experimenting with a candidate who has marginal fund-raising ability.
- Plan to volunteer for the general election campaign once the primary winner is announced. Talk to friends, family, and neighbors about the candidate. Bring others into the campaign. Encourage everyone you know to register for voting, and get them out to the polls on or before November 2nd.
- If you are able, give generously to the campaign. If you are not able to give personally, consider inspiring others who have the resources to contribute.
The 2010 election will be critical for our country, but it will be even more critical for Florida’s District 8. Alan Grayson has established himself as one of the most liberal and abrasively vocal members of Congress. He shuns his constituents, and ignores their needs and wishes. He is an embarrassment to the people of District 8!
Mr. Grayson CAN be defeated, but conservatives and Republicans have a steep hill to climb in order to conduct a winning campaign. In order too send him packing, it is time to dust off those campaign shoes, and donate that coin jar to the general election campaign… The time to act is now.
Resources Used to Prepare This Article:
- Federal Election Commission: http://fec.gov
- Center for Responsive Politics: http://opensecrets.org
Postscript: Of course, each candidate’s financial situation has changed since June 30th, but the figures shown are reasonable indicators of the general financial direction for each campaign. The next FEC reports are not due to be published until shortly after October 15th, and will show data accurate on September 30th.
| Name | Received | Spent | Cash Avail |
| Fanelli | $43,165 | $41,710 | $1,452 |
| Kelly | $223,275 | $85,299 | $137,975 |
| Long | $220,065 | $110,883 | $109,181 |
| O’Donoghue | $528,092 | $229,622 | $298,470 |
| Sullivan | $56,254 | $47,322 | $8,931 |
| Webster | $240,944 | $75,974 | $164,970 |
Well written and well researched Steve, but there is more to the story, more than most would take the time to digest.
If we look at the leading candidates’ numbers and dig down, some interesting facts begin to surface:
Kelly, Long, Webster, and O’Donoghue have significant consulting, payroll, and Website development expenses. Sullivan and her Patriot Army seem to just roll up their sleeves and do the work themselves. Let’s compare; caution I round numbers
Kelly Spent 85,000 Subtract 10,400 for filing fee and 43,200 for Consulting/Payroll/Web design.
21,000 is what is spent on campaigning/buttons/signs/etc
O’Donoghue spent 230,000 but 50,000 of that was repaying a loan he made to his own campaign (Still owes 75,000) and $7500 was paid to himself for office space – it’s a wash cause they all need office space but it counts as a contribution first then an expanse. Another 134,000 for web design/payroll expenses, filing fee and consulting, so
49,000 is what is spent on campaigning/buttons/signs/etc
Webster Spent 76,000 and 28,000 was Consulting/Payroll/Web design and that 10,400 filing fee.
48,000 is what is spent on campaigning/buttons/signs/etc
Sullivan spent 54,000 and 10,000 went to Consulting/Payroll/Web design but the filing fee was saved by getting on the ballot with petition.
Well, you get the idea. The question is what do they get for the money spent for website design, payroll, and all that consulting? Visiting all of their websites, following their campaigns and watching public reaction at rallies and straw polls I don’t see that the highest fundraiser is outperforming the lowest. Maybe because when you get past the money spent to raise money and concentrate on the money spent to raise awareness they are all about even. It then comes down to who has the best message.
Looking at that fund raising, I tend to discount the money candidates have loaned to themselves. I am also curious to see how much money comes from PACs and other campaigns.
There is more to the fund raising picture than the bottom line. In this race there is another question that comes to mind. What happens to the money that is left over when 6 of the seven candidates don’t win?
Thanks for the response, Allen. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the funding issue.
Each candidate chooses to spend campaign money in his or her own unique manner. While it would be interesting to accurately analyze the expenditures for each campaign, that will need to be the topic for another article, or series of articles.
Remarkably, none of the candidates has received greater than 5% of their campaign money from PAC’s or party funds. In our 7-way race, the outside funding sources all seem to be waiting for the winner to emerge from the primary.
From our current position on the election time line, any candidate who has not demonstrated an ability to quickly raise massive funding is not a serious contender. I have significant doubts that ANY current candidate can overcome the funding challenge, but several candidates are obviously not up to the task based on their reported performance.
The most difficult part of this campaign will begin on August 25th, and will end a short ten weeks later. There is no doubt that Alan Grayson will run a take-no-prisoners blood bath of a campaign against whomever emerges from the primary. He has already amassed the funds and the professional talent to overwhelm his challengers. It simply doesn’t make sense to send an unprepared and poorly-equipped candidate against him.
Allen, regarding the last question in your comment: “What happens to the money that is left over when 6 of the seven candidates don’t win?”
Obviously all debts and obligations of the campaign must be settled from remaining campaign funds. Excess monies are governed by federal law, FEC regulations and findings, and House rules. For a detailed discussion of allowable campaign expenditures and disbursements, you can download a free copy of the “Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees,” available at:
http://fec.gov/info/publications.shtml
Chapter 8 of that publication, currently beginning on page 51, lists the permissible uses of campaign funds, both before and after an election.
Personal use of campaign funds is illegal.
Hope that answers your question.
@ Steve – it seems apparent to me that your evaluation of the current “Campaign Finance” situation is a “Good Ol’ Boy” Politics as Usual position.
The Real telling factor in this District 8 race, as well as across the country, is NOT necessarily the “$ Factor” but the “Human Network Factor”! This FACT has been evident in a multitude of Primaries that have already taken place this year, i.e. Rand Paul, etc. as well as last year with how the Brown race began and their focus on the “Human Network” and personal relationships.
Steve, maybe you are right, money is everything and “We the People” do not matter. Therefore, we should all return to our recliners, our TVs, our reality shows, and DO NOTHING. The establishment and DC apparently is right.
@ kawigirl – Actually, I’m a big believer in the “human network effect” and I feel that all ethical politicians should be putting network theory into practice if they want to remain relevant in today’s society.
The proof of a network, however, is in the pudding. Alan Grayson has a very effective liberal network. Check his campaign’s Facebook page, and you’ll note that he has 27,428 “likes”. That is one of the reasons he has collected over $2 million from individuals (not including his own contributions, PAC’s, or party assistance). We can accuse him of a lot of things, but being part of the “Good Ol’ Boy Network” isn’t one of them. He has a dynamic following that feels strongly enough about him and his message to make substantial contributions.
Grayson’s weakness is that his network is national, not local. While he can collect money from liberals across the nation, only his District 8 supporters can vote for him. His ultra-liberal message doesn’t play as well in District 8 as it does in California, for example. He has built the right network to raise money, but the wrong network to energize voters in his district.
It is interesting to note that both Rand Paul and Scott Brown used their networks to raise more funds than their opponents. While Rand Paul’s success so far this year was in a primary, Scott Brown completed an entire primary/general election cycle. In his general election, he crushed his Democratic opponent financially BECAUSE he was able to build a strong network. Neither Brown nor Paul built networks INSTEAD of raising money. By the way, both men have strong messages that play well in their states, and they articulate them with confidence and credibility. All the money in the world won’t help a weak candidate or a confusing message.
I’m on your side – Republicans need to build strong, locally relevant networks like crazy, and that’s a far cry from doing nothing.
Steve pointed out in his original post the fact that Republican cumulative fund rasing doesn’t match Grayson’s. True, but as was just pointed out, Grayson has a national following and has been raising money since his election. Once there is a targeted candidate to oppose him, I would expect fund raising to focus and likely show some benefit to national opposition to Grayson.
Still, as I pointed out, it is what you do with what you have that is telling in this type of race. The momentum is on the side of the candidate that has the momentum – profound isn’t it. Since virtually all candidates have made the same spend on campaigning we can look at what they felt was worthwhile for the balance of their spend. Much of that was spent to attempt to understand how to run a campaign, what would appeal to the electorate, and help to get the work done.
It would seem we have a good study in the results to date. While some simply picked the a message and stuck with it, others shifted based on voter response. Some have the right message but it doesn’t resonate with the voters due to personality or stigma. Today we see classical campaigns against atypical campaigns. Where they are succeeding, the atypical campaigns are marked by a candidate that has a very good sense of where the voters feelings are. Many campaign managers who were sure their experience was the right strategy failed to produce winners this cycle. In sme money made a difference, in others no difference at all.
These atypical campaigns have continued to frustrate the established campaign “industry”. Their gut feel of the mood of the electorate sync’d up and generated both enthusiasm and solid support. This is what will be required to defeat an established candidate. I read a comment a few days ago suggesting that Sullivan may only get 15,000 votes. While I disagree, I also believe in today’s climate and with the breadth of field in FL-CD8 that might actually be a winning plurality.
What is certain is that whatever the outcome, these candidates will require eachother’s support to mount a successful campaign against Grayson. But do not underestimate the apathy of the opposition nor the quiet anger of the challenging conservative movement.
Allen, thank you again for your comments.
It’s quite true, once a candidate wins the primary, available conservative resources will flow to that candidate. Of course, funding, by its very nature, is finite. Donors with the means to provide substantial support cannot help all candidates due to election law limitations. They will choose their targets carefully, rewarding candidates who appear to have “winning” campaigns, and avoiding candidates that do not resonate.
I think we can agree that a mixture of money, message, ethics, attributes, charisma, background, speaking ability, and organization will win this election. We seem to disagree only on the formula for that mixture.
Simply being atypical, unfortunately, does not guarantee votes, nor does it seem to attract funding. A campaign also needs to present an attractive persona that draws people in large numbers to the candidate.
We may not want to depend on the opposition’s apathy. Alan Grayson is a driven man, and he wants to retain his Congressional seat. Judge him not on what you think he will do, but on what he is able to do.
We certainly agree that the winner of the primary will need the support of all the other candidates, as well as the District 8 Republican community. August 25th is a day we all need to come together.