So This is How Republicans Handle Money?

[Donkey®]

This is the meaning of "fiscal conservative?" Just saying...


RNC finances suffer from loss of major donors

Originally Posted by article

RNC finances suffer from loss of major donors

By T.W. Farnam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 13, 2011; 8:36 PM


Hundreds of major donors have abandoned the Republican National Committee, leaving it $20 million in debt and threatening its future as a central player in the 2012 presidential election.


The RNC raised just $7 million from major donors for the midterm elections, one sixth as much as it brought in for the previous midterms, in 2006. By contrast, the Democratic National Committee raised $38 million from large donors for last fall's midterms, three times as much as for the 2006 elections, according to a Washington Post analysis of donor records.

On Friday, when RNC members gather at National Harbor to select a chairman, they will meet under the shadow of the committee's finances, which are in worse shape than at any time since the Federal Election Commission began keeping records 35 years ago.

"You can't even dream of winning in 2012 with that kind of operation," said John Dowd, a Washington lawyer and longtime RNC donor who decided against contributing in the past two years because of the "mess" at the party. "As long as it's in that kind of shape, I can't even think of giving."

The run-up to Friday's vote, with Chairman Michael Steele in a tough race for reelection against four other candidates, has been laced with acrimony largely focused on the party's struggles to raise and manage money.


The financial troubles could be a significant challenge going forward, given a broad field of potential Republican presidential candidates and President Obama's fundraising success in the past. In his 2008 campaign, Obama raised $750 million, making him one of the strongest political fundraisers ever.

The Republican Party's donor rolls show that 609 major contributors from the past two elections chose not to write a check for the 2010 midterms, according to an analysis of data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

At least some of those donors decided to give instead to newly formed conservative interest groups, which increased their share of Republican fundraising in the midterms.

Among those donors is Donald Carter, Texas businessman and founder of the Dallas Mavericks NBA franchise, who gave at least $25,000 to the RNC each year from 2004 to 2008. In October, Carter gave $10,000 to American Crossroads, a group founded with support from George W. Bush administration political adviser Karl Rove.

Carter did not return calls seeking comment.

"Major donors are sophisticated," said Mike Duncan, who chaired the RNC during the 2008 elections. "They understand they have a choice."

He predicted continuing challenges for the party, given its outstanding loans.

"The hardest money to raise in politics is money for debt," he said.

The midterms saw a powerful shift of influence from the RNC to interest groups such as American Crossroads, which raised $70 million, more than any other advocacy organization. It was among a number of groups that formed after Supreme Court decisions lifted restrictions on spending. At least some of the new interest groups can shield the identities of donors while fielding hard-hitting campaign ads.

Dowd, a lawyer at Akin Gump, gave $15,000 to American Crossroads this fall, records show. He had given $50,000 to the RNC in recent years but made no contribution for the midterms.

He said no one at the RNC asked him to donate during the past election cycle. "I didn't get any calls," he said. "It is crazy."

The RNC's current debt far exceeds any in its past. In 1996, the year with the second-largest debt on record, the committee carried $5 million in loans, a quarter of the current level. The committee reported not quite $2 million in its bank accounts in November.

The DNC reported owing $15.5 million in November, and it had nearly $10 million in the bank.

Each of the candidates to chair the RNC, including Steele, has said the finances would become the top priority.

"We need money, and we need a lot of money," said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Wisconsin GOP, in a debate last week. "We need a chairman that's going to put his or her head down and spend literally five, six hours every day making major donor calls, major donor visits, literally working like an absolute dog for the next two years to get our fiscal house in order."

Priebus is slightly favored to win the contest when the committee's 168 members vote in an election that will continue for as many ballots as it takes for one candidate to get a majority.

Steele's two-year chairmanship has been controversial, marked by questions about party expenditures, including chartered jets, a retreat to Hawaii and a large bill rung up by staff at a California bondage-themed nightclub.

In defending his tenure, Steele has pointed to the party's success in the November elections, when Republicans captured the House by picking up 63 seats. Steele notes that the victory came after a party low point in 2008, when Obama won the White House and Democrats increased their congressional majorities.

"When I began on the job in 2009, we couldn't find anyone to say they were a Republican," Steele said at the debate. "We put together a small team and got busy at the task of winning elections, reaffirming the value of this party to the American people."

Steele has vowed to stay in the race until the last ballot, even if it is clear that he cannot win. Priebus has collected 40 public endorsements, nearly half the number needed to win.

Other candidates in the race include Maria Cino, a former Bush administration official who ran the party's 2008 convention and has been endorsed by House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio); Ann Wagner, a former ambassador to Luxembourg and former head of the Missouri GOP; and Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan party chairman who lost to Steele in 2009.

Staff writer Chris Cillizza contributed to this report.

I know, I know...this means nothing...It's somehow Obama's fault...or a sign of socialism...but the group of R is in real trouble for the 2012 elections.

[northhunter]

I notice there is a new chairman of th RNC now so I don't think anyone blamed Obama. Oh wait that was sarcasm right?

[WickedLou9]

Wonder how much of that was the result of allowing unlimited corporate donations. the article talks about increased funding to special interest groups. Now that corporations can anonymously donate to these groups it could be siphoning money from the RNC.

[kinggovernor]

what a terrible troll thread

[wanna be drummer]

Wait...some people still assert that Republicans are fiscally conservative? Don't make me laugh like that. Republicans don't know the meaning of responsibility

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

what a terrible troll thread

Are we supposed to comment on the OP or not? If not, I guess we're allowed to just claim trolling by trolling in a thread. Is that in the rules you like to post?

[illavbill]

Thanks to the Citizens United ruling the Republican party should be greatly financed until a legitimate court changes that BS ruling. Then it'll be Obama's fault some how like everything.

[gipper]

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

Wait...some people still assert that Republicans are fiscally conservative? Don't make me laugh like that. Republicans don't know the meaning of responsibility

There you go again...boy do I love that line...

Question:
Which party best fits your political ideology? Rs or Ds? There is only one right answer.

Only one party balanced the budget in the last 40 years? Do you know which one? And, there is only one party who proposes limiting spending today. Do you which party that is?

You have a propensity to criticize conservatives and the R party, but I seldom see a balance in your posts. Are you doing this to get along with the libs here? If so, could it be you are middle child?

Here is the Great One debating Jimma...I wonder which one you would vote for if they were running for office today???

YouTube Video

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by gipper

There you go again...boy do I love that line...

Question:
Which party best fits your political ideology? Rs or Ds? There is only one right answer.

Neither. Not even close.

Only one party balanced the budget in the last 40 years? Do you know which one?

Relevance? In the last decade neither party has been even near acceptable as far as responsibility goes

And, there is only one party who proposes limiting spending today. Do you which party that is?

Yup. Libertarian.

You have a propensity to criticize conservatives and the R party, but I seldom see a balance in your posts. Are you doing this to get along with the libs here? If so, could it be you are middle child?

Personal attack aside, this post is retarded. I criticize both parties where applicable. My apologies to your being a newbie but if ou'd been here longer than a month you'd know what I mean.

Here is the Great One debating Jimma...I wonder which one you would vote for if they were running for office today???

Reagan hands down. The way you speak though, I doubt Reagan would want your vote..he didn't like liberals

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by illavbill

Thanks to the Citizens United ruling the Republican party should be greatly financed until a legitimate court changes that BS ruling. Then it'll be Obama's fault some how like everything.

This kind of thinking is exactly what is wrong with the Democratic party in America today. Even when Obama criticized the decision he did not mention the law once. It's all about how people "feel" it should be. The objective of liberals is to pad the Supreme Court with as many liberal activist judges as they can so that hopefully one day they will be able to bypass the legislation portion of American governance and get what they want. When that day comes we will no longer be governed by elected officials, but rather lifetime appointed judges who will shape America as they see fit. It would be nice if liberals didn't turn to the courts to overrule the will of the elected officials and instead focused on constitutional legislation.

[illavbill]

Originally Posted by JaJae

This kind of thinking is exactly what is wrong with the Democratic party in America today. Even when Obama criticized the decision he did not mention the law once. It's all about how people "feel" it should be. The objective of liberals is to pad the Supreme Court with as many liberal activist judges as they can so that hopefully one day they will be able to bypass the legislation portion of American governance and get what they want. When that day comes we will no longer be governed by elected officials, but rather lifetime appointed judges who will shape America as they see fit. It would be nice if liberals didn't turn to the courts to overrule the will of the elected officials and instead focused on constitutional legislation.

It has nothing to do with what Obama said about it. I think its a bullshit ruling that was split down party lines in the Supreme Court. Companies != people they shouldn't be able to spend unlimited toward candidates. What do you call it when the court overturned precedent in this ruling? I call that activist judges. But if it helps out the repubs its okay right?

Deregulation of financial and environmental issues are ruining our country. This is just another example of it. I understand the whole free market ideology but my god people aren't usually going to look out for the greater good of the nation. They are going to use/throw away people as much as needed to get more money for their stock holders and their own pockets.

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by illavbill

Companies != people they shouldn't be able to spend unlimited toward candidates.

Why not?

Perhaps we need a system that would give all qualified candidates an equal platform. Contributions would just go to extra advertising above and beyond.

Originally Posted by illavbill

Deregulation of financial and environmental issues are ruining our country. This is just another example of it.

How is this an example of it?

Originally Posted by illavbill

I understand the whole free market ideology but my god people aren't usually going to look out for the greater good of the nation.

This is a loaded statement. I understand the whole liberal thing, but shouldn't we care more about the nation?

Originally Posted by illavbill

They are going to use/throw away people as much as needed to get more money for their stock holders and their own pockets.

True.

[gipper]

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

Neither. Not even close.

Relevance? In the last decade neither party has been even near acceptable as far as responsibility goes
Yup. Libertarian.

Personal attack aside, this post is retarded. I criticize both parties where applicable. My apologies to your being a newbie but if ou'd been here longer than a month you'd know what I mean.

Reagan hands down. The way you speak though, I doubt Reagan would want your vote..he didn't like liberals

Why do you always avoid the question? I asked which party best fits your ideology Rs or Ds. And you ignore the question. You see, this is why I question your beliefs.

The Rs are all we have right now. We know, well anyone paying attention knows the Ds are socialists. For a person to claim they are libertarian and yet they condemn the Rs, is nonsensical.

Only one party has balanced the budget in recent times. That party is the Rs in case you forgot. Yes, they went astray under the PROGRESSIVE Bush. But, now we can only hope they are back on track. Because they are our last hope. The Ds will run this country right down the drain into the hell that is socialism.

I thought libertarians did not like socialism. Is that true for you?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by The Great Catpiss

Why not?

Perhaps we need a system that would give all qualified candidates an equal platform. Contributions would just go to extra advertising above and beyond.


How is this an example of it?


This is a loaded statement. I understand the whole liberal thing, but shouldn't we care more about the nation?


True.

About the "why not" : Companies are not people. They don't vote. They are not citizens. A company should not be allowed to spend money out of it's corporate bank account to influence an election any more than we would want a foreign government spending money to influence an election. If the CEO wants to spend his personal money that's fine. Of course there are limits on individual donations to political candidates. But people have circumvented that by forming these "political action groups" which exist solely to funnel money to a candidates election efforts.

Allowing corporations to spend unlimited money anonymously perverts the electoral process. Companies have access to huge resources. Much more than any private individual would have. Allowing this has the effect of suppressing the speech of others by drowning them out.

There seems to be a disparity here. Individuals can only contribute, what , 5000 max to any candidate? Why is that? The same principle that was used to create that limitation applies to these other cases. If I donate money to a candidate, my name and my donation goes out as a matter of public record. There is a reason for that and it is to ensure the purity of the most sacred part of our country, our ability to vote for representatives to speak for us in government. That is the very core of our country. It's worth defending. All of this corporate money and special interest group spending has perverted the process. It has created a situation where a select few people/groups control the process. You have to have millions of dollars to run for election. You have to be part of the establishment or no one will hear your voice. This is why 3rd party candidates can never win. If you want to change the cycle of one major party or the other... political spending has to be your target.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by gipper

Why do you always avoid the question? I asked which party best fits your ideology Rs or Ds. And you ignore the question. You see, this is why I question your beliefs.

The Rs are all we have right now. We know, well anyone paying attention knows the Ds are socialists. For a person to claim they are libertarian and yet they condemn the Rs, is nonsensical.

Only one party has balanced the budget in recent times. That party is the Rs in case you forgot. Yes, they went astray under the PROGRESSIVE Bush. But, now we can only hope they are back on track. Because they are our last hope. The Ds will run this country right down the drain into the hell that is socialism.

I thought libertarians did not like socialism. Is that true for you?

The Republicans are no more libertarian than the democrats. They are just another flavor of big government. Under Bush and GOP controlled congress: government expanded, defense spending expanded, Medicare spending expanded, Civil rights were infringed. Sarbanes-Oxley regulation was enacted ( something just as sweeping and impactful as anything Obama has done to date). The social agenda was different, but they could not have been further from libertarian ideals of greater individual freedom and smaller government. If you think the most current class of GOP congressmen and senators will be any different you are the one who is delusional. A tiger can't change his stripes.

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by gipper

Why do you always avoid the question? I asked which party best fits your ideology Rs or Ds. And you ignore the question. You see, this is why I question your beliefs.

First off, I don't give a shit what you think I am.

Second, the Republicans would be my answer in theory but in practice they're just as evil as the Democrats

The Rs are all we have right now. We know, well anyone paying attention knows the Ds are socialists. For a person to claim they are libertarian and yet they condemn the Rs, is nonsensical.

Are you joking? Bush and Congress between 2000-present have never once acted as libertarians or anything remotely close to it. You need to figure out what small-government means.

Only one party has balanced the budget in recent times. That party is the Rs in case you forgot. Yes, they went astray under the PROGRESSIVE Bush. But, now we can only hope they are back on track. Because they are our last hope. The Ds will run this country right down the drain into the hell that is socialism.

You're talking about two parties that are essentially the same thing in practice.

I thought libertarians did not like socialism. Is that true for you?

Absolutely. The difference between me and you is that I will recognize when an actual attempt for socialism will take place. You see a small import tax or a tariff and cry socialism because, instead of understanding the actual meaning of the word, you use it as an umbrella term for liberal...which is ideologically incorrect to do and makes you look stupid.