• Home
• Voting & Democracy
  • Go Vote
  • N.C. Voter Guide
  • VoterRadio.com
• Research & Publications
  • Follow the Money
  • NCCVE Research
• Multimedia
  • The Voter Update Podcast
• For the Media
  • News Releases
  • Media Advisories
  • Contact NCCVE
• About Us
  • Board of Directors
  • Staff
  • Contribute to NCCVE
  • Contact Us
• Search

Oct. 15, 2007

Looking Beyond the Money Chase in the Race for the White House

By Damon Circosta

RALEIGH - This week, the Federal Election Commission will release third-quarter fundraising totals for all of the presidential campaigns. Not so long ago the release of this information would have come and gone with little notice by anyone except hard-core political junkies.

But recently a candidate’s fundraising prowess has become one of the most closely watched aspects of the entire process. There will be media stories galore on what these numbers mean about the prospects of those aspiring to be president.

Last quarter, when Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the race to raise the most cash, the media erupted with stories on a sea change in the Democratic primary. Now, just a scant three months later, Hillary’s nomination is considered inevitable, even though she raised money at about the same rate as she did last time.

Campaigns live and die by these numbers not so much because money is the only determining factor in who becomes president, but because fundraising is now the story that drives everything else.

Last month, several Republican presidential candidates did not show up for a debate at a historically African-American college. Although some questioned the motives of the absent candidates, the most oft-quoted explanation was that the debate was held the week before the all-important quarterly deadline for filing campaign reports. Whether or not one is inclined to take the absent candidates at their word, it is astounding to note that they would be so candid as to say that a quarterly fundraising deadline is more important than attending a debate.

The notion that fundraising is now the major story is also evident in news coverage of significant policy initiatives. Proposals from the candidates on issues such as health care, immigration and the war in Iraq barely make it into a news cycle, but the fact that Rudy Giuliani leads all Republicans with $11 million in the third quarter is a constant topic for the political pundits.

To focus on fundraising ability to the exclusion of all else is a bad way to gauge presidential merit. Campaigns should be about selecting the most qualified person and assessing his (or her) various policy proposals. The ability to raise contributions might be important in a campaign, but it is low on the list of skills needed to be a good president. Maybe if our taxes were collected on a voluntary basis (like campaign contributions) we would need a commander in chief that is good at asking for money, but as far as I know, the Internal Revenue Service is not a “give what you can” organization.

Granted, the ability to convince people to give a contribution is one way of assessing a candidate’s relative support, but if we are going to use fundraising as a means to measure backing, we need to look beyond the totals. Where does this money come from? Is it small contributions from a cross section of the American public or is it large sums from people who expect something in return?

Mitt Romney, second-place finisher in the third-quarter GOP money race, is personally responsible for roughly half of the $10 million his campaign received since August. The only thing his fundraising total tells us is that Mitt Romney thinks Mitt Romney would make a good president.

The political pundits sifting through these tea leaves ought to beware that early fundraising totals have been poor prognosticators in the past. In the third-quarter 2003 filing, Howard Dean outpaced John Kerry by nearly $10 million. Yet Kerry went on to receive his party’s nomination.

Money can go a long way in a campaign for the White House. It buys those 30-second attack ads that have become so popular and so effective. What money cannot buy are the ballots of voters hungry for more than sound bites about dollar signs and who want a presidential election that is focused on who is the best candidate, not who has the biggest bank account.

Damon Circosta is the acting executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving elections in North Carolina.