Contrary to the widespread myths, Republicans have long been far less dependent on wealthy fatcat contributors than Democrats.
For many years, Republicans have gotten far more money in small donations than Democrats. Democrats have been mostly dependent on the super-wealthy to keep them afloat. So, given that recent campaign laws make it tougher for the wealthy to donate money, it should surprise no one to learn that the non-partisan (but quite left-leaning) Center for Responsive Politics has recently reported that:
Fundraising is now harder than ever for Democrats. Why? Because recent campaign finance "reforms" cut off their biggest supply of funding (the super-wealthy) while making only a tiny dent in Republican fundraising abilities.
Republicans keep happily raking in the dough from middle class voters and small to medium-sized business owners, while Democrats have little idea where to turn now.
The Center for Responsive politics did find that 94% of those who spent the most also won, but neglected to point out that this is because incumbents almost always win--which continues to beg the chicken-and-egg question of whether they win because they have more money, or have more money because they're incumbents, and because the system already makes it too difficult for challengers to get enough money to compete effectively. (Those of you who read Dean's World know that I firmly believe it's the latter, not the former.)
Democrats are going to have a miserable slog of it in 2004, but maybe it'll make them start realizing that free-market-friendly, overtaxed middle America is worth their attention after all. We can only hope, eh?
Yeah, one can always hope. One can also dig through the pile of manure seaching for the pony, too.
In either case, the outcome will be the same.
Look, the Democrats *had* to know that they get (got?) the bulk of their money from a small number of fat-cats, and only a small amount from small individual contributitions. And they *had* to know that for the Republicans it was the reverse.
They had to know these things, didn't they???? Because if they didn't, then they are really stupid---and I don't believe that they are stupid. (Wrong, but not stupid)
So what gives? How could they have been so blind to the obvious consequences of the policy that they were pushing so hard.
All I can figure is that the Dems made the classic mistake of believing their own propaganda---in this case, the propaganda (read: lies) that they were waging againt the Repubs.
They told lies about their opponent, pushed a policy that would harm said opponent if true--which they weren't--and it backfired in their face.
Such is the peril of demonizing your opponent.
Yup--and the Dems are supposed to be the party of the "little guy" and the rhetoric surrounding campaign finance reform was that it was a blow for the "little guy" to take "special interests" out of politics. However, all interests are "special" (except one's own, which is, of course, "vital").
So, yes, I think Fred is right--they believed their own rhetoric.
Its telling that Democrats are supported by the Super rich (Money & votes) and the poor (votes only.) Could the relationship be Rich patrons and clients? Not much value for individual freedom here.
Great comment Fred.
I say this with trepidation derived from previous experience and extrapolating whence: potential recurrence of once applauded commentators impelled towards incessant babbling of little import. Just a passing, unfortunate recollection, little related to this instance, I am sure; also of which, probably by now, if not before, has continued into irony.
One possible, uncharitable explanation, is that many of the Democrats who voted for the act expected that there would be sufficient loopholes to render the law essentially a nullity. The really uncharitable explanation would be that they expected the Republicans to be more scrupulous in obeying the intent of the law, and that it would thus be a net win. (It's still a win to be seen as on the side of "reform.")
Another explanation is that both most Democrats and Republicans were implacably principled, and voted against their crude self-interest. (Except for the Republican moderates and Sen. McCain, who did vote according to their crude self-interest.)
I am really looking forward to the 04 election. I agree with every posting so far. Great insight Fred & Dean I'm with you...04 should be pretty interesting.