By: Daniel Marans
Democrats enjoy significant fundraising advantages in dozens of House contests that could determine control of the legislative chamber, according to new financial disclosure data.
Democrats’ cash edge, shown in financial disclosures that had to be filed by Monday, is all the more notable because the vast majority of the party’s contenders are outperforming Republican rivals without the benefit of corporate PAC money.
Democratic candidates in 45 of the most competitive House races have raised $252 million, compared with the $172 million raised by Republican rivals, a New York Times analysis of the campaign disclosure data found.
Democrats have raised two-thirds of all the money hauled in by House candidates, according to an analysis by FiveThirtyEight, a data-focused news site. That’s by far the most since 1998, as far back as FiveThirtyEight’s data goes. In 2006, when Democrats last won control of the House from the GOP, Democratic and Republican candidates’ total fundraising was roughly even.
[…]
What’s more, the bulk of Democratic House candidates are posting these historic fundraising hauls without direct help from corporations.
Eighty-five Democratic House candidates who have pledged not to accept donations from corporate political action committees have outraised their Republican opponents, according to End Citizens United, a Democratic group that encourages candidates to take the pledge. Of the six Democrats who raised more than $3 million in the third quarter, all but McGrath have promised not to accept corporate PAC money.
“The Democrats’ ability to raise money from an energized base means that their principled position to refuse corporate PAC money has not had much impact on their overall war chests,” said Baumann, who worked for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2006, a Democratic wave year.
End Citizens United maintains that candidates raise more grassroots dollars because of the pledge, not despite it. “In giving up corporate PAC money, these candidates gain voters’ trust allowing grassroots donors to feel they are part of a movement and standing toe-to-toe against special interests money,” said Anne Feldman, a spokeswomen for the group.
Republicans still have some strengths in which they can take solace, even in a challenging cycle. For example, the Republican National Committee boasts a fundraising advantage over the Democratic National Committee, which it has used to erect a vast field operation capable of helping candidates up and down the ballot. The RNC has spent $250 million protecting House and Senate majorities, enabling it to field more than 540 paid staff members in 28 states.
“Democrats simply don’t have the political infrastructure that we do to get people to the polls,” said RNC spokesman Michael Ahrens. “Candidates like Jon Ossoff and Danny O’Connor lost despite having a ton of money and the backing of the entire Democratic machine.”
Republicans also have a seemingly unending flow of cash from outside groups, particularly through the Congressional Leadership Fund and Senate Leadership Fund, two GOP super PACs tied to Republican leadership. Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson recently dumped an emergency injection of $25 million into the two super PACs.
Those groups have stepped in to bolster advertising for Republican candidates who trail their Democratic rivals.
But this year, Democratic political groups are thriving as well. Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York mayor, is planning to spend $80 million through his super PAC ― the vast majority of it on behalf of Democratic candidates.
In addition, there are limits to what outside forces can accomplish when candidates lack their own cash. Campaign dollars go further on television, because unlike super PACs, stations are required to charge them the lowest possible market rates. And super PACs are barred by law from coordinating with campaigns, which can prevent them from using their resources most effectively.