Kari,

A nit comment: Tom Allen is running against Susan Collins, not Olympia Snowe.

Oh, damn. Thanks. That's fixed. I knew that, I really did.

Raul, we'll see the detailed reports next week. Meanwhile, here's what was reported about Tom Allen's money:

She also said $300,000 came from across the state of Maine, and that $970,000 came from individuals, an amount she called “really incredible” for Allen’s first quarter as an announced Senate candidate.

I think that you will find that most of the same folks that are making it possible that " Across the country, Democratic challengers in the US Senate are raking in the cash " are the same that made this war possible and are profiting handsomely from it.

I don't. If you think Al Franken is banking checks from defense contractors, I suggest you actually go check out his filings. Granted, Democrats do also raise money from rich people, but do you really think that trial lawyers, tech and creative professionals, and unions have the same personal or institutional prerogatives as Richard Mellon Scaife or Halliburton?

I think your critique holds only if you think all rich people are evil warmongers.

I hope and believe that raul is mistaken. I would like to think that overall, the people who give money to the Democratic challengers of Republican incumbents are substantively different from the donors to Republican incumbents, or even to Democratic incumbents. Maybe I'm wrong, and obviously there is some overlap, but I really believe there is a difference.

Having said that, like it or not, money is the currency of politics. The strength D's have always had over R's is in the sheer relative numbers of sympathetic individuals. If a thousand people give the R $1,000 each, but 10,000 people give the D $100 each, they're even.

>I think your critique holds only if you think all rich people are evil warmongers

That's part of it. Just for the record, not everyone who gives $1,000 or even $500 is rich (trust me on this), nor are such donors necessarily motivated by prospective personal or business advantage. Some of us just believe in a better America and feel privileged to have the resources as well as duty-bound to put our money where our mouths are. %^>

Raising tons of money just to run for political office is a gut-wrenching, soul-twisting reality check for politicians.

A reality that makes me wonder if anyone can get elected to national office who isn't spending 80% of his or her waking life asking for money and spending maybe 15% of their time researching or understanding the issues, and about 5% of their time in office actually making decisions.

I keep thinking back to the Homeland Security act and many other laws and the fact that virtually no one in congress actually knows what they are voting for. Could a major part of the reason be that these officials are too busy raising the wads of cash necessary to stay in office?

I have heard from many local and state politicians who don't relish being on the phone or going to fund raising events and being peddled like some kind of quasi-commercial product complete with branding.

It should give one pause before celebrating how many millions of dollars are raised per quarter by anybody.

I must get 20 emails a week online and at least 2-5 phone calls per week from politicians pleading for money and I've got to say it's starting to wear pretty thin.

I can't imagine how it must be to be a full-time fund raiser who makes their living raising mountains of money so someone can get elected...

Color me more than a little blue, Orygun.

Al Franken has worked damn hard for his money. Dems in Minnesota will tell you he has busted his butt for the party the last couple years, and is calling in those chits.

I can't speak to Tom Allen's campaign, don't know about it.

Novick's money is in the $300 range if I recall right; a few relative high rollers (and by that I mean lawyers and real estate agent type high rollers), and the rest in 100s and less.

The incumbents are lapping up the money of K Street, and DLC-favored candidates will get the big donor money, and we have every right to lament that. But the progressives we're talking about--throw folks like Darcy Burner in there in Seattle--do their fundraising a totally different way.

On Smith's funding--it's just not good times for GOP asks, that's the way it is. I'm stymied for a reason why they will get better between now and the election, but it could happen I suppose.

Novick doesn't need to catch Smith in money; he just needs enough to have people know who he is. He needs attention, not time to persuade. That part he does very well at the retail level.

Merkley is a different kind of candidate who likely would run things the old fashioned way, with consultants and big broad TV buys on the networks (instead of geo-targeted cable buys, which are far cheaper). If he gets in, he better get started. 190K would be a bad quarter for him.

An incumbent U.S. Senator facing a tough re-election fight should be doing better than that.

OK, this is just me being snarkey, but doesn't he need a challenger before he faces a tough re-election fight?

Democrats across the country are bringing in good amounts of money because people across the U.S. want to see Democrats with a stronger hold on the chamber.

Even though they live in different states, they're sending money to states where there's a Republican that could be beat. The DSCC has been showing which states they're going after. Senator Kerry has been pushing people to give money to funds for the eventual nominee in states like Texas. And so have others.

And Smith does have challengers. There are two people who have already stepped up to run. There are others who will likely be deciding in the next month or so. And whoever comes out of the primary should get huge amounts of money from the DSCC as well as from around the country. The DPO is already working against Smith. Smith's numbers aren't that great, even with him trying to appear moderate by voting on bills that have no chance of passing. All of that makes for a tough re-election fight.

And since this is a thread on Smith, I was just want to do my disclosure that I work on Steve Novick's web site, but I in no way speak for the campaign.

While it's nice that Smith isn't raising a huge amount of money, $800K is nothing to scoff at. Combined with the fact that he can self-finance as much as he could possibly need, I think the chances of any Dem candidate outraising him are about nil.

A Democrat doesn't have to outraise Smith, thank goodness.

What's necessary is to raise and spend probably $3-5 million. That's perfectly doable, especially if the DSCC does its job properly.

There will be lots of free/earned media once the campaign heats up.

Much of the time we don't outraise Republicans. That's because we are able to rely a lot on volunteer phone banks, canvasses, etc.

Republicans do some volunteer events, but they do a lot more paid voter contact, including phone banks, robocalls, and canvassing. They also do a lot more mailers and advertising.

But none of that has the impact on a voter as does face-to-face contact via a volunteer canvass or a phone call from a volunteer. It takes many mailings, ads, paid voter contact, etc. to equal one face-to-face visit at the door.

That is often times the difference between Republican campaigns and Democrat: we have a lot of supporters who can't give much money, but can give a lot of time; they have people who can give a lot of money, but very little if any time.

Disclosure: I work on Steve Novick's web site, but I in no way speak for the campaign.

Actually, I don't know how much cash-on-hand Franken and Allen have... hardly the point: they RAISED more than Smith, an incumbent Senator.

According to this more detailed AP story, Smith spent $330,000 in this last quarter. My god, he spent $110,000 a month. ON WHAT?! You'll note that he ran no TV ads. That is, in my colloquial French, a fuck-ton of money to be spending this far out.

HOLY #$&*!

That is a lot of money. What on earth could he have spent it on? Can it be that expensive to truck in Mitch McConnell and hire a boat?

Maybe he's paying an army of people $500 an hour to conduct surveillance on the resistance by reading BlueO? %^>

Rank speculation on where Smith's money has been going: highly-targetted push-polling of some kind? Testing various slams on potential challengers?

Marilyn Wood Smith had a nice quote in the "blog":

No flashy TV ads or websites will hide the fact [Gordon Smith] votes with President Bush 90 percent of the time, nor close the gap between his Oregon quotes and his Washington, D.C. votes.

Let's cut to the chase on that last comment:

DJ wraps up his point by lambasting this shadowy Dem machine for exposing the fraud shock jock Don Imus had perpetrated for decades.

Priceless.

DJ's quoted citation reveals everything I need to know about its bias by the way it repeatedly refers to "Democrat" candidates.

OK, people. That's enough. This is not a post about either George Soros or Don Imus. Back on topic, please.

Strangely, I find myself agreeing with DJ on the legitimacy of this angle of this discussion.

If D-vs.-R fundraising is the topic, than the funders and their motives are definitely an important part.

DJ's indictment of various Democratic fundraising entities is utterly unconvincing to me. The one thing that jumps out is this quote:

MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, 'Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it…'"

If there's any legitimacy to that quote - which sounds utterly ridiculous to me - please provide a citation.

Now, on to conservative and corporate fundraisers. Care to comment on the extensive anti-democratic actions taken by Howie Rich, the New York developer? How about the out-of-state insurance companies who funded the most expensive ballot campaign in 2006?

If D-vs.-R fundraising is the topic, than the funders and their motives are definitely an important part.

Today, NYT.com and the paper edition of the NYT report some very interesting data about the Democratic advantage in online fundraising, which enables Democratic candidates to raise huge amounts of money in relatively small increments. This is one of the leading factors in the recent success of Democrats in raising money.

Even if you believe that everyone who gives $2300 is inherently evil, which would make me very sad, you have to acknowledge that in general the gross amounts being raised by D's are coming from more small donors (many of whom are repeat donors) than the Rs' donations are, and in a democracy that has to be a good thing.

Couldn't agree more with both Thom and Stephanie above. Just trying to say to DJ, if you want to talk about funders, I'm game. It's important stuff. Just bring better material than the tripe you posted above, ok? I'm up for a discussion, but not for wasting my time.

the Democratic advantage in online fundraising, which enables Democratic candidates to raise huge amounts of money in relatively small increments.

Of course, "online" fundraising is a technology that's almost entirely available to both sides. ActBlue does a little bit extra for our side, but not much.

I'm not inclined to give credit to the technology itself (an odd spot for a guy in my business) but rather to the rising power of the progressive grassroots. Part of this is an accident of history (they had the White House and Congress, we were nowhere) and part of it is the natural inclination of progressive toward the bottom-up grassroots, rather than institutional powers.

Technology is a critical piece of all this, but only in the way that picks and axes were important to the gold rush: crucial, but only useful if there's any gold there.

DJ, the magical conspiracy spinning machine! First it was that Haditha wasn't actually the scene of murder, now it's the FrontPage-pushed idea that George Soros runs the Democratic funding universe. (I assume he's every one of 250,000 individual donors to Barack Obama.)

Front Page? Dude. Could you have picked a group of people with LESS credibility these days? What have they been right on in the last decade, for heaven's sake?

and I hear this may not be anything CLOSE to the worst news to come out of the fundraising quarter for Smith...

now it's the FrontPage-pushed idea that George Soros runs the Democratic funding universe. (I assume he's every one of 250,000 individual donors to Barack Obama.)

I can now reveal the truth. George Soros also funds BlueOregon. In fact, I am George Soros...

I'm not inclined to give credit to the technology itself (an odd spot for a guy in my business) but rather to the rising power of the progressive grassroots. Part of this is an accident of history (they had the White House and Congress, we were nowhere) and part of it is the natural inclination of progressive toward the bottom-up grassroots, rather than institutional powers.

I do give more credit to the technology itself, because it has reduced the cost of identifying, cultivating, and soliciting small donors. And with enough small donors, you can raise as much money as the Republicans. Or more.

"I can now reveal the truth. George Soros also funds BlueOregon. In fact, I am George Soros..."

Then that means you've made over 350,000 donations to Barack, apparently. John Edwards is going to be PISSED at you.

As one of the tiny group, including Veterans in Action, demonstrating against Smith before his yacht trip on the Willamette, I can report that really relatively few people showed up to back their good old boy. Because of my past highly mistaken associations, I knew about a quarter of the people who went aboard; more importantly, however, I did not see a massive turnout for Smith by so-called moderate Republicans.

The point is that Smith cannot depend on grass roots Republicans for campaign cash. He must get cash from big-money special interests. Of course, that's not news but I see another hole in his armor -- it's possible that "moderate" Republicans will also refuse to vote for Gordo. And I have a well grounded belief that the ultra right will also not vote for him.

<hr/>