|
Campaign finance hurts democrats { June 28 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42947-2003Jun27.html?nav=hptoc_phttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42947-2003Jun27.html?nav=hptoc_p
Democrats Discovering Campaign Law's Cost
Saturday, June 28, 2003; Page A05
The evidence is growing that Democrats shot themselves in the foot by forcing passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law restricting what had been unlimited "soft money" donations to political parties.
A report released yesterday by the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, found that, contrary to common perceptions, Republicans have a big advantage over Democrats in donations from small donors, while Democrats are king among only the biggest.
The study, analyzing donations during the 2002 campaign cycle, found that those little guys giving less than $200 to federal candidates, parties or leadership political action committees contributed 64 percent of their money to Republicans. By contrast, those fat cats giving $1 million or more contributed a lopsided 92 percent to Democrats. The only group favoring Democrats, in fact, were contributors giving more than $100,000.
"The findings illustrate the Republicans' strong advantage over Democrats in the current system," the center concluded. That's for sure. With the McCain-Feingold law capping total contributions at $95,000 per person, the Democrats are plain out of luck.
The analysis also found an extension of the gender gap into political contributions. Women who listed an employer or income-generating profession gave 61 percent of their political money to Democrats, while women who declared themselves "homemakers" or named an occupation that doesn't produce income gave 55 percent of their political contributions to Republicans. Overall, women gave 53 percent of donations to Democrats, and men gave 54 percent to Republicans.
One wild card: Because women gave 26 percent of "hard money" -- the contributions made directly to candidates that had always been regulated -- but only 15 percent of the now-restricted soft money, wealthy couples may partly offset the new soft money restrictions by having women increase their hard-money contributions.
Less surprising was the finding that 94 percent of congressional candidates who outspent their opponents won their races.
The study also found that only one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans gave $1,000 or more. Total spending in the 2002 cycle by candidates, parties and interest groups was $2.2 billion, down from the $2.9 billion spent in 2000 but significantly more than the $1.7 billion spent in the 1998 midterm election.
Courting the Latino Vote
Wonder why so many Democratic presidential candidates are heading to Phoenix this weekend? It might have something to do with "Hispanic Tuesday."
That's what Adam J. Segal, director of the Hispanic Voter Project at Johns Hopkins University, dubbed Feb. 3, 2004 -- the day primaries are held in two heavily Latino states, New Mexico and Arizona. Democrats, eager to court that crucial constituency, are hoping to get an early start by speaking to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference this weekend in Phoenix. Among those visiting or teleconferencing with NALEO are Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), John F. Kerry (Mass.), John Edwards (N.C.) and Bob Graham (Fla.), as well as Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), Howard Dean and Al Sharpton. New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson, a Hispanic who has been discussed as a possible candidate for national office, will moderate a forum today.
A study released by Segal's outfit yesterday explains the Democratic candidates' interest in this weekend's dog-and-pony show. Hispanics account for 42.1 percent of the population in New Mexico and 25.3 percent of the population in Arizona. Segal argues that Hispanics, who have passed African Americans to become the nation's largest minority, will influence Democratic presidential politics "earlier than ever before, and at a higher rate than ever before."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
|
|
