This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/just-how-daunting-is-the-money-chase-for-2016/2014/12/10/6ca67d1a-800d-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Just how daunting is the money chase for 2016? | Just how daunting is the money chase for 2016? |
| (about 9 hours later) | |
| Elections should be about voters — their issues, their worries, their questions. Instead, elections increasingly have become about donors — courting them, corralling them and depending on them. | Elections should be about voters — their issues, their worries, their questions. Instead, elections increasingly have become about donors — courting them, corralling them and depending on them. |
| For Hillary Rodham Clinton, should she run for president in 2016, money will not be an issue. For the large and unsettled field of Republicans, it is — at least for now — almost everything. For the next year, raising the money needed to go the distance in a competitive nomination contest and beyond will be among the highest of priorities. | For Hillary Rodham Clinton, should she run for president in 2016, money will not be an issue. For the large and unsettled field of Republicans, it is — at least for now — almost everything. For the next year, raising the money needed to go the distance in a competitive nomination contest and beyond will be among the highest of priorities. |
| By the time of the 2016 election, the two major-party nominees will have raised more than $1 billion. But securing the nomination, just to get to the general election, will require raising in excess of $100 million. | |
| Spencer Zwick, who ran Mitt Romney’s strong fundraising operation in 2012, said, “It’s just as hard to raise $100 million for the primary as it will be to raise $1 billion for the general. . . . In the primary, every contribution you get, you are asking for it. You’re working a lot harder for those dollars.” | Spencer Zwick, who ran Mitt Romney’s strong fundraising operation in 2012, said, “It’s just as hard to raise $100 million for the primary as it will be to raise $1 billion for the general. . . . In the primary, every contribution you get, you are asking for it. You’re working a lot harder for those dollars.” |
| My colleagues Matea Gold and Tom Hamburger reported that, by some estimates, the leading candidate or candidates for the nomination will need to raise as much as $75 million to make it past the first round of primaries and caucuses. Some back-of-the-envelope math shows what awaits the field. | |
| Assume for now that everyone opened for business Jan. 1 and, therefore, would have about 425 days to raise money through the end of February 2016. To hit $75 million would mean raising about $176,000 a day, every day, for the entire period. | |
| Assume again that the contribution limit for individuals will be about $2,700 for the 2016 cycle. That equates to finding 65 maxed-out donors, at an estimated $2,700 each on each of those 425 days (or alternatively, sparking a prairie fire among small donors on the Internet). | |
| It becomes more daunting, however, when you look at prospective timetables for getting into the race. Few candidates appear to be in a rush to form committees that would allow fundraising to begin. Many are talking about announcing late in the first quarter or perhaps at some point in the second quarter, although the timing of establishing a fundraising committee and formal candidacy announcement could be different. | It becomes more daunting, however, when you look at prospective timetables for getting into the race. Few candidates appear to be in a rush to form committees that would allow fundraising to begin. Many are talking about announcing late in the first quarter or perhaps at some point in the second quarter, although the timing of establishing a fundraising committee and formal candidacy announcement could be different. |
| Romney did not set up his presidential committee until the second quarter of 2011, and by the end of January 2012, he had raised about $60 million in individual contributions, according to Federal Election Commission reports. If a candidate sets a target of raising $60 million by the end of February 2016, starting on the first day of the second quarter of 2015, that would mean having to raise about $179,000 a day, or 66 maxed-out donors every day. | |
| There are alternative ways of trying to survive and prosper. Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, burrowed into Iowa in 2011, living off the land, as it were. In all of 2011, he raised just $2 million. Yet, when the count was eventually completed, he ended up winning the Iowa caucuses, defeating Romney by the narrowest of margins. | There are alternative ways of trying to survive and prosper. Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, burrowed into Iowa in 2011, living off the land, as it were. In all of 2011, he raised just $2 million. Yet, when the count was eventually completed, he ended up winning the Iowa caucuses, defeating Romney by the narrowest of margins. |
| Spurred by his success in Iowa, Santorum raised $4 million in January 2012. But it wasn’t until he won three contests in a single day in February 2012 that his fundraising caught fire. As Romney’s leading challenger, he raised $9 million in February and $5 million in March. By the time he ended his campaign in the late spring, he had raised a total of $22 million. | |
| Romney eventually would raise about $112 million in individual contributions through May 2012, at which point the nomination was locked up. His nearest competitor, in terms of money raised, was then-Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), with $39 million. Paul had significant success raising grass-roots money, which could become the model for his son, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), should he run in 2016. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), with $23 million, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, with $19 million, completed the top five in money raised. | Romney eventually would raise about $112 million in individual contributions through May 2012, at which point the nomination was locked up. His nearest competitor, in terms of money raised, was then-Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), with $39 million. Paul had significant success raising grass-roots money, which could become the model for his son, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), should he run in 2016. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), with $23 million, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, with $19 million, completed the top five in money raised. |
| Another way to look at it is Romney vs. the field. For the nomination contest, Romney’s challengers raised $137 million to his $112 million. In 2011 alone, Romney raised $55 million. His competitors raised a combined $95 million. The total pot of money contributed to Republican candidates in those 12 months was $148 million. | Another way to look at it is Romney vs. the field. For the nomination contest, Romney’s challengers raised $137 million to his $112 million. In 2011 alone, Romney raised $55 million. His competitors raised a combined $95 million. The total pot of money contributed to Republican candidates in those 12 months was $148 million. |
| There’s nothing to suggest that there will substantially more available for the candidates between now and when the 2016 primaries and caucuses begin. Even if there were a 10 to 15 percent increase, that’s not a lot when divided among the number of candidates who are thinking about running. | |
| If it takes $75 million to come out of the first round of contests as the leader and the total pot is only $150 million to $175 million by then, there will be a few haves and more have-nots. Others who are not favored by the donor class of the Republican Party or are not capable of building a grass-roots donor army could be at a significant disadvantage. | |
| Some candidates will do well with the big-money crowd, although history suggests that one of them will do significantly better than the others. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, should he run, could be that candidate, or perhaps New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, although the Securities and Exchange Commission’s pay-to-play rule would limit his Wall Street contributions. Perry was an effective fundraiser during his brief candidacy, but could have trouble maintaining his Texas donor base once he’s out of office. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has one of the biggest lists of donors — big and small — of any Republican. | Some candidates will do well with the big-money crowd, although history suggests that one of them will do significantly better than the others. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, should he run, could be that candidate, or perhaps New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, although the Securities and Exchange Commission’s pay-to-play rule would limit his Wall Street contributions. Perry was an effective fundraiser during his brief candidacy, but could have trouble maintaining his Texas donor base once he’s out of office. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has one of the biggest lists of donors — big and small — of any Republican. |
| All this points to increased reliance by all those thinking of running on the alternative way to finance presidential campaigns, which is through the creation of candidate-centric super PACs, which are allowed to take contributions of unlimited size. Finding a financial angel or two who will bankroll a super PAC could be just as important as building a donor network to underwrite a candidacy. | All this points to increased reliance by all those thinking of running on the alternative way to finance presidential campaigns, which is through the creation of candidate-centric super PACs, which are allowed to take contributions of unlimited size. Finding a financial angel or two who will bankroll a super PAC could be just as important as building a donor network to underwrite a candidacy. |
| The 2012 campaign was the first in which candidate-specific super PACs played a big role. Romney had the biggest by far, but Gingrich (Ga.) and Santorum were aided significantly by the existence of their own super PACs, funded in large part by individual donors (Sheldon Adelson for Gingrich; Foster Friese for Santorum). | |
| Center for Public Integrity’s reports on those super PACs tell an interesting story. Gingrich’s super PAC, Winning Our Future, raised about $23 million and spent about $17 million on independent expenditure ads — $13 million on ads advocating for Gingrich and $4 million attacking Romney. Santorum’s super PAC, the Red, White & Blue Fund, raised about $8.5 million and spent $7.5 million on independent expenditure ads, almost all of it on ads advocating for the former senator. | |
| Meanwhile, Romney’s super PAC, Restore Our Future, spent $19 million on attacking Gingrich when he posed a threat to the former Massachusetts governor, and then, when Santorum became the leading challenger, spent $21 million on attacking the former senator. Put another way, Romney’s super PAC (not counting what Romney’s campaign did) spent almost as much money attacking Santorum as Santorum raised for his entire campaign. | Meanwhile, Romney’s super PAC, Restore Our Future, spent $19 million on attacking Gingrich when he posed a threat to the former Massachusetts governor, and then, when Santorum became the leading challenger, spent $21 million on attacking the former senator. Put another way, Romney’s super PAC (not counting what Romney’s campaign did) spent almost as much money attacking Santorum as Santorum raised for his entire campaign. |
| Major donors will get a lot of attention in the coming months, more than is warranted. The scramble for money will start to stratify and possibly winnow the field long before voters get a chance to weigh in. That’s hardly an ideal system. | Major donors will get a lot of attention in the coming months, more than is warranted. The scramble for money will start to stratify and possibly winnow the field long before voters get a chance to weigh in. That’s hardly an ideal system. |