Democrats 'whooping' Republicans in fundraising game – or are they?

All the first-quarter fundraising results show that Democrats are doing significantly better than Republicans. But Republicans are increasingly raising money in other, more opaque ways.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File
Rep. Steve Israel (D) of New York is quite pleased with how Democrats did in first-quarter fundraising.

One thing is clear from the first-quarter fundraising results: The 2014 midterms are likely to be the most expensive ever.

Another: Democrats are doing well, at least when it comes to money.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) raised more than $10 million in March, and now sits on an impressive war chest of about $40 million, putting it at the top of party-linked campaign committees. (Last week, disclosures showed that the Democrats' campaign committee for Senate candidates raised $8.1 million in March, compared with the GOP's $6.3 million.) 

Not only that, an Associated Press tally of cash raised through independent groups in the first quarter gives Democrats a 3-to-1 edge over similar Republican groups. That number, though, is somewhat misleading, given how many conservative groups – including the Koch brothers' powerful Americans for Prosperity – don't have to disclose fundraising because of the way they're classified.

And that could be an enormous asterisk. In the new and murky world of political fundraising ushered in by the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling in 2010, "the two parties simply spend money especially outside money very differently," Politico concludes in a rundown of the fundraising tally.

Republican outside money is increasingly being run through groups like the Kochs' 501(c)4 and 501(c)6 groups that aren't required to disclose donors and don't disclose spending levels until much later. But most Democratic money goes through labor groups and "super political action committees."

"It’s an illusion that Democrats are winning the money race at this point," Politico says.

Steve Israel, the New York congressman and DCCC chair, praised what he called a "blistering fundraising pace" by the DCCC in a statement, adding that "Americans are hungry for a Congress that will buckle down and focus on creating jobs and strengthening the economy and that's why they're supporting the DCCC at record levels."

In terms of individual House and Senate races, the results are more mixed, though a Wall Street Journal analysis of the 53 most competitive House races gave Democrats a clear overall edge. The Democratic candidates had a combined total of $41.8 million in the bank and raised $14.9 million in the first quarter of 2014, compared with $30.1 million in the bank for the GOP candidates in those races and $13.8 million raised this past quarter.

"So far in the 2014 campaign, Democrats are whooping Republicans when it comes to raising money," the WSJ concluded, noting that in total, the Democratic Party has so far outraised the Republicans by nearly $100 million.

But the results for Republicans were positive in certain key races.

Among the "winners" cited in the Washington Post's analysis of the first-quarter fundraising results is Tom Cotton, the Republican challenging Arkansas' Democratic Sen. Tom Pryor for his seat. He raised $1.35 million to Pryor's $1.22 million.

In Alaska and Virginia, the top Republican challengers also posted good results. (In the case of Virginia, Republican challenger Ed Gillespie raised less than incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, with $2.2 million to Warner's $2.7 million, but Gillespie's number was particularly impressive given his late entry to the race.) While Senator Warner is still seen as the favorite, Gillespie's strong entrance could force Democrats to spend more money there than they had hoped.

"The Virginia state party was down in the dumps just a few months ago after losing the gubernatorial and two other statewide races in the wake of the federal government shutdown. Now with a viable Senate candidate, donors and activists have perked up," writes conservative Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin. "Every million dollars spent to save Warner’s seat is a million that can’t be used in Michigan or Arkansas or Colorado," writes Rubin.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.