Matching Funds Decision

On January 20, 2010, a federal district court judge declared unconstitutional the challenged “Matching Funds” provision of Arizona’s so-called “Clean Elections Act,” striking a blow for the rights of individuals and groups to speak freely during political campaigns.  The Institute for Justice is challenging Arizona’s scheme of publicly financing elections, which drowns out the voices of individuals and groups who wish to support privately financed candidates who run against taxpayer-funded candidates in a misguided effort to “level the playing filed.” If a group makes an independent expenditure in favor a privately funded candidate, the unelected bureaucrats at the Clean Elections Commission dole out dollar-for-dollar “matching funds” to the publicly funded candidate. That means that for every dollar an individual or group spends to support the candidate of their choice, over the publicly funded candidate’s initial government subsidy, the government pays an equal amount of money to the political competition. IJ also seeks to preserve the right of individuals to run for public office without having to accept taxpayer funds. Arizona’s public financing scheme punishes candidates who reject the political welfare of public funding by burying them in red tape and giving extra money to their publicly funded opponents. The case is being appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where IJ will again demonstrate that "clean Elections" doesn't level the playing field, it levels the players on the field.http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1227&Itemid=165

How the Matching Fund System works - http://www.fec.gov/info/chone.htm#anchor1556220
Common Cause - Campaign Finance Reform - http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/COMMONCAUSECAMPAIGNFINANCEREFORMAGENDA2009.PDF
Paper -  The Potential Effects of Public Funding on Political Parties - http://campfin.polisci.wisc.edu/Conf/LaRaja.pdf

If I had a dollar for every time.... Here are the December fundraising numbers for the six major party committees (November numbers are here):

Committee	December Receipts	December Spent	Cash-on-Hand	CoH Change	Debt
DCCC	$3,814,572	$2,485,106	$16,681,433	$1,329,466	$2,000,000
NRCC	$3,214,159	$4,887,837	$2,674,277	($1,673,679)	$0
DSCC	$3,400,000	$2,600,000	$12,500,000	$600,000	$1,250,000
NRSC	$4,100,000	$3,100,000	$8,300,000	$1,000,000	$0
DNC	$4,536,164	$9,058,004	$8,683,337	($4,503,910)	$4,699,610
RNC	$6,844,861	$7,172,005	$8,421,948	($327,144)	$0
Total Dem	$11,750,736	$14,143,110	$37,864,770	($2,574,444)	$7,949,610
Total GOP	$14,159,020	$15,159,842	$19,396,225	($1,000,823)	$0

Heavy spending by many of the committees leaves both sides with lighter wallets as of December 31st, but moreso for Democrats than Republicans. The DNC gets whooped yet again, and even the NRSC edges the DSCC. All three Dem committees paid down some debt, but the NRCC managed to wipe out all of the $2 million it owed. Feisty creditors, or expectations that good times are about to roll?
http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/6330/december-party-committee-fundraising-roundup

Donations despite no Representation

Roughly one of four donations to House candidates so far this election cycle is coming from individual donors from outside states. But some candidates are receiving more of these out-of-state checks than others.

During the 2009 calendar year, House Democratic candidates received more than 30 percent of their donations from citizens who can’t legally vote for these candidates — because the live in another state — but still have chosen to contribute to their campaigns.
Meanwhile, Republican House candidates raised just over 21 percent of their donations from out-of-state contributors.

This disparity in fundraising from outside a lawmaker’s district can account for part of a larger financial advantage that Democrats have over GOP House candidates. In all, House Democratic candidates raised almost $85 million from individuals during 2009, while their Republican counterparts raised $68 million.
Major House candidates receiving the largest percentage of out of state money in individual donations are:

1. Rep. John Conyers Jr. D-Mich., 99.6 percent
2. Rep. Chellie Pingree , D-Maine, 93 percent
3. House Candidate Linda Stender, D-N.J., 92.8 percent
4. Rep. James L. Oberstar , D-Minn., 91.5 percent
5. House Candidate Krystal Ball, D-Va., 88.5 percent
6. Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy , D-R.I., 86.3 percent
7.Rep. Tom Rooney , R-Fla., 85.6 percent
8. House Candidate Doug Hoffman, R-N.Y., 84.4 percent 9.Rep. Dan Burton , R-Ind., 81.8 percent
10. House Candidate Tommy Sowers, D-Texas, 80.9 percent 11. House Candidate William Russell, R-Pa., 80.3 percent
12. Rep. Earl Pomeroy , D-N.D., 80.2 percent

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003297885
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/74507-worst-rnc-cash-flow-in-a-decade

Campaign Funding Angles

FEC rulings have given candidates the latitude to charge a "commercially reasonable rate" of interest for personal loans to campaign committees, said commission spokeswoman Judith Ingram. Lawmakers aren't allowed to convert campaign funds to personal use, but laws governing the subject are arcane, Ingram said. "You have to look carefully at the regulations and see when and if that's taken place," she said.

Napolitano spokesman Christopher Honey declined to comment on the loan and said that Napolitano would not speak to a reporter about it. Napolitano's campaign finance forms indicate that she has collected more than $158,000 in interest on the loan since 2001 and has reduced the principal by about $65,000. The loan was first reported Friday by Bloomberg News, which said the congresswoman had paid herself $221,780 in interest since 1998. Napolitano held at least one fundraiser each in 2007 and 2008 to collect money for the loan, according to campaign records.

Both were hosted by 21st Century Group Inc., a Capitol Hill lobbying firm whose clients include several transportation interests. Napolitano is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and is chairwoman of the water and power subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee. Both fundraisers were hosted by 21st Century lobbyist Jocelyn Hong, who could not be reached for comment.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/14/local/me-napolitano14

2010 Funding - RNC hobbling

From The Hill:
A 2009 spending spree has left the Republican National Committee (RNC) with its worst election-year cash flow this decade.

The largest GOP party committee has $8.7 million in the bank heading into an election year with 37 governors’ races, a dozen major Senate contests, dozens more in the House and an all-important redistricting cycle on the horizon.

The RNC had $22.8 million in cash and no debt when Michael Steele was elected chairman at the end of January, but has since seen its cash on hand drop to less than $9 million at the end of November.  Over the previous five months, while governors’ battles were being waged in New Jersey and Virginia, the committee saw its cash reserves drop by a full $15 million. Through November, the committee spent more than $90 million last year, which is nearly $20 million more than the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Off-years like 2009 are generally a time for committees to get their financial house in order. They work to retire any debt left from the last election cycle and then build a war chest in preparation for the even-year election.

The RNC, though, made huge investments in New Jersey and Virginia, betting on the momentum created by those gubernatorial races to spur more giving.

Both were big GOP wins, but the question for many in the party is whether they were worth such a dent in the party’s coffers. And even subtracting the $13 million spent in those races — $9 million in Virginia and $4 million in New Jersey — the committee has just about broken even since Steele took over.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) lost both races, but saw its cash on hand climb to a debt-free $13 million. That’s not a whole lot better than the RNC, but the DNC began the year in much worse fiscal shape, with $5.6 million in cash and $5 million in debt.

“The fact that the RNC committed a large amount of resources and staff in 2009 did yield a significant dividend,” Gitcho said. “The goal of the RNC is to raise money and win elections. We had a strong fundraising performance last year, but have an even more aggressive approach for the 2010 midterms.”

After each of the last two midterm off-years, the RNC had more than $30 million in the bank. In 2005, it raised $19 million more than it spent, and in 2001, it raised $10 million more than it spent.  The situation is particularly troubling for the cash-strapped National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which had just $4.3 million in cash and $2 million in debt at the end of November. The committee, which is targeting upwards of 40 Democratic districts, could use the national party’s help in a big way.

“It’s problematic, to be sure,” said conservative commentator Matt Lewis. “They should be riding high, but I think conservatives have decided it’s better to donate to groups like the Club for Growth — or to the candidates themselves.”

While the RNC continues to spend heavily on consultants and outside help — about half of the $90 million it spent between January and November (2009) — the DNC has moved much of its operation indoors. The RNC has spent about twice as much as the DNC on consultants this cycle, according to a review of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data.

About $35 million of the $90 million spent by the RNC has gone to direct mail and telemarketing — its trademark methods of rounding up donors. The DNC has spent about $11 million on those two things, but has raised nearly as much as the RNC.

One former RNC member pointed out that the Republican Governors Association (RGA) ended the year with $25 million in the bank — suggesting more of the onus could have been on that organization.

http://politicalintegritynow.com/2010/01/worst-rnc-cash-flow-in-a-decade/