Posts
By Francis LaViolette
GREENWICH- Politicians nationwide have started to express apprehension about the upcoming fundraising season as the nation’s economy continues to sputter. Fundraisers attribute the uneasy feeling to both the fear of the unknown and the harsh realization that the halcyon days of advertising bombardment may be a thing of the distant past.
Politicians running for office in 2012 have noticed a steady decline in the number and amount of donations coming from all sources. Private donors, who usually account for a large percentage of small donations, are less numerous than in the past. Perhaps more troublesome is the fact that corporate donors- historically a reliable bell cow for campaign spending- have expressed uncertainty about the economic and political climate. As a result, many large companies are holding onto cash, which is resulting in what economists call a “supply gap” in the political fundraising market.
[LEFT- Politicians are reaching out to all types of potential donors to fill in the gaps.]
Market analysts point out that potential election donors are worried about their potential return on investment in the political system. In the past, campaign donations have reliably yielded a steady 6% yearly return over the subsequent election cycle, occasionally spiking into double figures through targeted tax breaks, industry deregulation, and old-fashioned kickbacks. Today, despite low interest rates, election investors are worried that decades of political largesse may have created a grease money bubble where donors have over-leveraged themselves. They worry that political resources may be tapped: that tax rates and corporate welfare cannot get any more favorable without destroying the market altogether. Furthermore, partisan bickering- once seen as a necessary façade to make the process appear legitimate- has become an unwanted nuisance that gets between corporations and their government entitlements.
The candidates, for their part, are doing everything in their power to create a donation-friendly climate. For instance, many Congressmen who initially opposed health care reform are now pushing to implement requirements that all Americans purchase health insurance before the end of the year. Pundits have noted that those pushing for expedition are located in districts heavily populated by the insurance industry and could be chasing down donations from insurance companies who will be flush with donation cash from all of the new business guaranteed by the legislation.
With such a divisive election sure to come, everyone understands that it is important to get a head start in political fundraising. Without a substantial war chest, it would be impossible for a candidate to run a thorough negative campaign against his or her adversary. A good smear campaign requires calculated leaks to the media, suggestive TV and radio ads with enough double meaning potential to maintain some plausible deniability, and outright slander from political action committee hacks. If a candidate is not able to start the negative campaign process soon, there may not be enough time to complete the full arc of attacks, which may leave voters with an incomplete hatred of one candidate or another when going to the polls. The potential for disaster is especially large in an election year that includes so many fringe candidates. Imagine, for example, if voters are still hearing messages about Michelle Bachman’s husband being secretly gay during the general election. That message might play to the Republican base, but independent voters would be much more likely to turn against her for general incompetence or whatever corruption scandal her opponents fabricate between now and the election.
Donations have been so hard to come by that some politicians have had to find creative ways to line their coffers leading up to the election. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently found himself in hot water for receiving $1 million from an untraceable and non-existent corporation. Romney blamed the incongruity on the bad economic conditions saying, “I would have never had to make up this imaginary shady donor if my regular, actual shady donors had enough cash to bankroll my dead end campaign.” Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) has been able to keep his head above water by soliciting lump-sum donations from his state’s powerful coal lobby. It is not yet known whether the “lump of coal” payment is an actual donation or an ironic mockery of his performance in office.
Perhaps the hardest hit by the fundraising shortfall has been the Tea Party, whose candidates have been consistently flabbergasted by their constituency’s irrational insistence that they stay within their modest election budgets. Their democratic counterparts, conversely, have continued to spend lavishly in hopes that the election will pay for itself in the long run.
The candidates, for their part, are doing everything in their power to create a donation-friendly climate. For instance, many Congressmen who initially opposed health care reform are now pushing to implement requirements that all Americans purchase health insurance before the end of the year. Pundits have noted that those pushing for expedition are located in districts heavily populated by the insurance industry and could be chasing down donations from insurance companies who will be flush with donation cash from all of the new business guaranteed by the legislation.
With such a divisive election sure to come, everyone understands that it is important to get a head start in political fundraising. Without a substantial war chest, it would be impossible for a candidate to run a thorough negative campaign against his or her adversary. A good smear campaign requires calculated leaks to the media, suggestive TV and radio ads with enough double meaning potential to maintain some plausible deniability, and outright slander from political action committee hacks. If a candidate is not able to start the negative campaign process soon, there may not be enough time to complete the full arc of attacks, which may leave voters with an incomplete hatred of one candidate or another when going to the polls. The potential for disaster is especially large in an election year that includes so many fringe candidates. Imagine, for example, if voters are still hearing messages about Michelle Bachman’s husband being secretly gay during the general election. That message might play to the Republican base, but independent voters would be much more likely to turn against her for general incompetence or whatever corruption scandal her opponents fabricate between now and the election.
Donations have been so hard to come by that some politicians have had to find creative ways to line their coffers leading up to the election. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently found himself in hot water for receiving $1 million from an untraceable and non-existent corporation. Romney blamed the incongruity on the bad economic conditions saying, “I would have never had to make up this imaginary shady donor if my regular, actual shady donors had enough cash to bankroll my dead end campaign.” Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) has been able to keep his head above water by soliciting lump-sum donations from his state’s powerful coal lobby. It is not yet known whether the “lump of coal” payment is an actual donation or an ironic mockery of his performance in office.
Perhaps the hardest hit by the fundraising shortfall has been the Tea Party, whose candidates have been consistently flabbergasted by their constituency’s irrational insistence that they stay within their modest election budgets. Their democratic counterparts, conversely, have continued to spend lavishly in hopes that the election will pay for itself in the long run.
First
ReplyDelete