May 25, 2004

Man, Julia really is something else when she gets on a roll, isn't she? Marvelous.

One thing to note, from this WhiteHouseForSale post that she quotes:

The Associated Press reports that while Democratic-leaning 527 groups are receiving in large contributions, Republican-leaning 527s are having difficulty finding super-sized donors of soft money.

"They don't seem to exist, or they're afraid to come forward," David Keating, executive director of the Club for Growth conservative anti-tax group, said of million-dollar-plus GOP donors. "We're certainly going to work to try to change it." And a number of explanations are being offered.

Republican fundraiser Matt Keelen suggests that most Republican donors are businessmen who are inherently more conservative with their money.

And Jackson "Steve" Stephens of Arkansas says that CEOs must report to boards, whose members may not be comfortable giving big money to organizations that are independent, less well-known and, therefore, less "reputable" than an established political party.

Aren't we overlooking an obvious reason here? I'll give you a hint - it's a three-word Latin phrase that means what for what.

And I agree with Jesse. They should definitely use the Club for Growth as their spiritual guide.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum reminds us that the GOP version of the 527 is the 501(c).

Posted by Charles Kuffner on May 25, 2004 to Show Business for Ugly People | TrackBack

Thanks man! I just finnished my Latin homework and was looking forward to a nice, Latin free hour. then I read your Blog...

Posted by: Andrew Cory on May 25, 2004 12:18 PM

I'd also guess that Bush is, to some small extent, sucking up a lot of the free cash. I wonder how that's going to affect down ticket races?

Posted by: Morat on May 25, 2004 12:37 PM

The thing is that this should be exactly the right kind of vehicle for free cash, since there aren't limits (yet) like there are for candidates. At the very least, you'd think some of the usual-suspect rich individuals would turn to 527s. Maybe all of the ones who'd be motivated to do so already have outlets for their spare change, I don't know. It'll be interesting to watch.

Oh, and sorry about that, Andrew. But you know what they say - "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur."

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on May 25, 2004 12:57 PM

OK, this beat me to posting today's column (I have an editor). But it's actually funnier than I'm allowed to say forcefully in my non-partisan "blog" (it isn't really one, I know), anyway, so I may as well say it here.

Re-read the WaPo story that Julia quotes first. Note that, as the GOP was fighting to say that 527's are illegal, Francis and Synhorst were severing relations with the campaign specifically so that they could run a 527. You don't think they knew they were going to lose before the FEC and were playing plans a bit early, do you? The principled defenders of campaign finance reform, the GOP? NEVER!

Meanwhile, I loved the term in Syhorst's case. His company is using "silos" to ensure that there's no overlap of work. This is the same term used by the USA Today that is why they didn't catch Jack Kelly's lies. An editor would read his work and think it looked funny, but because it was in the somebody else's "silo", s/he wouldn't touch it or follow up.

This stuff kills me...

Posted by: Ron on May 25, 2004 1:46 PM

Bottom line is, there are at least two pretty distinct groups which vote Republican for economic reasons: Big Business ('nuff said), people who vote the "fiscal conservative" ticket. And the latter one can be dissected further, and some of them are breaking away from Team Bush.

If one defines "fiscal conservative" as one who is generally anti-tax first and foremost, they'll surely stay with Bush. But other "fiscal conservatives" (I include myself here) are more concerned with avoiding runaway budget deficits and crippling national debts than with getting a few extra bucks back from Washington, and it is this this type of Republican-leaning voter that is leaving the Bush camp in droves.

And I would claim, without proof, that the "little guys" in the Republican "economic conservative" tent are more likely to be the anti-deficit, Concord Coalition-type voter, as those driven by Big Business and lower taxes on the uber-wealthy are more driven by huge potential personal gain than by the huge bill their grandchildren are inheriting. Their windfalls are greater even than their increased share of the national debt.

But for the rest of us who get $100 back while watching our per-capita share of the debt rise by $200 plus interest...

Posted by: Tim on May 25, 2004 3:32 PM

You should read this good work:

Republican business don't contrubute to 527s because 527 orgs have to report the name and amount of donations.

Republican business use 501(c) corps because they dont have to report amounts, names or anything !!!

There is more Republican money hidden in 501(c) corps than there is Democratic in 537s.

It's a little long but do read the report.

Posted by: JM on May 25, 2004 6:39 PM