The NRCC

Is getting pwned by the DCCC.  They can't even keep a positive cashflow.  If money means anything in these elections, it looks as though the Repubs are going to have an awfully hard time expanding the playing field and contesting vulnerable house seats in November.  

Of course, I'm a believer that money can only go so far.  But still, it is VERY encouraging to see the DCCC with a 7-to-1 lead on the NRCC in current assets less liabilities.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 01:23:49 AM UTC

Just because this has been my hobbyhorse of late:

But still, it is VERY encouraging to see the DCCC with a 7-to-1 lead on the NRCC in current assets less liabilities.

The Democrats' debt is a good thing. With interests rates at historic lows and money still flowing in regularly, the Dems are much better off carrying this debt than paying it down. Obviously, some of it may be to vendors, who will want to get paid in 30 days. But I believe a lot of it still is bank loans from last cycle, which are of course repaid on a timetable.

So yeah, technically, the debt would count as a "liability." But the DCCC is not a business that's being sold off, or a rickety company with a potentially unmanageable debt load. It's a persistent campaign committee which, barring almost unimaginable catastrophe, will always be able to keep raising money. (Hell, the NRCC never stopped raking it in even after the Mark Foley scandal, which directly implicated chair Tom Reynolds.) The overall debt is still small, and I'm sure the payments are manageable.

'Twasn't always this way for Dems - we've advanced quite a bit over the last couple of decades in terms of our ability to raise money. But I doubt we'll backslide. While I wouldn't want to see our committees overload on debt, they are doing just fine right now - and can and probably should take on more debt for the 2010 cycle.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 02:01:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm

Is it normal for the RNC to be spanking the DNC like this even with a Democratic president?

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 01:32:33 AM UTC

Hard to say

But in my view, it's not acceptable. The RNC had spanked the DNC for eternity, but there was reason to believe the tables would finally be turned with a Democratic President and Congress. And yet they still keep beating us. That said, the gap is a lot smaller than it used to be.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 01:55:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The cash on hand situation is encouraging

But given the environment, it's going to be insufficient.  

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 02:13:34 AM UTC

2006

Does anyone have the 2006 numbers from the same time frame?

29/D/Male/NY-01

---

by: Tekzilla @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 03:13:43 AM UTC

You can find them easily

By searching at the FEC. Use the electronic filings search for the DCCC/NRCC & DNC/RNC, and the regular search for the DSCC/NRSC. Let us know what you find!

---

by: DavidNYC @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 03:20:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not to be too pessimistic...

but after the Citizens United ruling, we may need a new row called "Corporations", with their Cash-on-Hand number as the infinity symbol.  In that sense, the Republican committees don't really need to worry about fundraising at all, because they know their corporate buddies can come in at any minute and simply overwhelm us.

---

by: BruinKid @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 08:59:09 AM UTC

True, but

Even before Citizens United, there was already a lot of independent-group spending, with a good chunk of it funded by corporate PACs.  Now corporations can use treasury funds directly instead of PAC funds, and there's no way to sugar-coat that: it's bad.

But my question is about disclosure.  As a lot of election law scholars have pointed out, the biggest effect of Citizens United may not look like "Wal-Mart takes out a giant ad buy against candidate X," but rather "Americans for a Bright Shiny New Future, Inc." -- a corporation rather than a 501(c)(4) or 527 -- takes out a big ad buy, and isn't subject to the usual rules about disclosing who ITS donors are.  (Could be Blackwater/Xe, could be a foreign parent corporation, etc.)  Does anyone know what disclosure requirements will apply to these new corporate expenditures?  Other than the one where the corporation itself has to disclose its name in the ad?  Will we ever know who hit us, in other words?

---

by: JR12 @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 17:32:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Governors

Any reports of RGA/DGA fundraising? Surely, their numbers are at least as important as the committees, especially considering the year thats in it.

---

by: Ireland @ Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 13:10:08 PM UTC