Press "Enter" to skip to content

Super PACs Draining Pool for State Party Cash

South Dakota Democratic Party chair Ann Tornberg has been ringing the fundraising bell with a twelve-day holiday e-mail push.

But post-Citizens United, do state political parties stand a chance of competing with super PACs for the big dollars?

But state parties can’t really compete with super PACs when it comes to raising funds. Thanks to the federal McCain-Feingold law, which abolished soft money — unlimited funds donated to parties from wealthy individuals, corporations and unions — they’ve lost out in the contemporary money race. It’s instead being poured into super PACs or so-called dark money groups that don’t have to disclose the identity of their donors [Alan Greenblatt, “The Waning Power of State Political Parties,” Governing, December 2015].

If super PACs are draining the pool by giving skittish wealthy donors an outlet to hide their involvement, the answer is not to let parties take unlimited anonymous donations; the answer is to impose the same transparency on all political actors. Then state parties would have a better shot at the cash they need to do the things they are best at:

State parties do the often unglamorous work of building and maintaining a base, year in and year out, whether there’s an election or not. They mobilize loyal supporters and have a standing knowledge of voter behavior and concerns. Parties also play a unique role in coordinating activity and messaging between candidates at all levels, from legislators to the presidency. “A super PAC can fill the airwaves and Internet with effective, targeted negative messaging, but it cannot activate party supporters, who rely on local elected officials for guidance, support and patronage,” says Matt Hennessy, a Democratic consultant [Greenblatt, Dec 2015].

Short of overturning Citizens United (and with an election year coming up, the budget is the last thing Kristi, Mike, and John will get done in this Congress… if they can even agree on that!), what can parties do to get the money they need? And with the PACs exerting themselves for candidates, do the parties even need as much money to perform the basic functions listed above?

8 Comments

  1. Robin Page 2015-12-15 10:52

    In the last two Legislative campaigns (2012 and 2014) the SD Democratic party gave NO FUNDING to Democratic Legislative candidates. In 2012 they did offer the candidates free access to voter roles and to the daily lists of early voters. However, in 2014, neither of these were free to candidates. As a former candidate in 2012 and 2014, I will never financially support the SD Democratic Party. I will give directly to Democratic candidates I choose to support. In my opinion, the SD Democratic Party is out of touch with the needs and wants of SD Democrats. The current Chairperson is a self-acknowledged conservative Christian “Pro-Lifer”. This alone has cost the Democrats many members. Democrats are changing their voter registration to Independent or NP because the Democratic party no longer stands for the values we all shared before.

  2. Lynn 2015-12-15 11:44

    It will eventually be a fringe party and remain financially broke.

  3. larry kurtz 2015-12-15 11:53

    The national GOP will eventually be a fringe party and remain financially broke relegating SDGOP to the weeds.

  4. Jeff Barth 2015-12-15 17:04

    Robin, Your comments are very on target. The priority of the Party has been to pay the rent and make payroll.

  5. Troy 2015-12-15 19:42

    Here are my thoughts:

    1) I think a strong party is the most critical thing for long-term electoral success. First, they provide organization infrastructure (lists, volunteers, candidate training, fundraising ideas). Second, they do more than recruit candidates but the organization induces the best candidates (who might have no experience on how to run a campaign) to choose to run. Third, they build the bench starting at the lowest offices so they have an abundance of potential candidates to move up the chain.

    2) I think the personal policy views of formal party leadership is irrelevant (whether moderate or on the right/left fringe) so long as they are committed to elect party nominees selected locally and are diligent not to use their office to impact primaries.

    3) Parties who do what they are supposed to do (see #1), get results. That attracts monetary support. When they are failing at #1, donors choose to support candidates which helps incumbents and safe candidates but insures all marginal races are deficient of organization and money and ultimately have a remote chance of winning.

    4) Parties are the best allocators of scarce financial and organizational resources and they must exercise this discretion judiciously and prudently. Robin may have been the ideal Democrat but she is in a district with a large voter registration AND organizational infrastructure disadvantage. It would take a disproportionate percent of scarce resources to overcome that disadvantage. Frankly, a prudent party would not provide disproportionate resources in safe seats or those most disadvantaged but to those where disproportionate resources can effect races in the marginal districts.

  6. Jeff Barth 2015-12-15 22:39

    Troy,

    Good comments. But as Robin pointed out when the Party demands to be paid for voter lists it is actively taking the candidate’s limited funds to support the Party.

    The Democratic Party is a group demonstrably unable to contend for any statewide elected office. Led by folks that have never personally won an election against a Republican. It could be argued that without gerrymandering Democrats would have even fewer legislators.

  7. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-17 11:50

    Pretty tough assessments of the prospects for the SDDP. Can we put some horses in front of the cart? Specifically, looking at Troy’s #3, is there an alternative route to recruiting new candidates in previously safe districts to draw donor interest, make inroads in previously safe GOP areas… and then have those winning candidates lead the party to better fundraising? Or maybe more logically, can the party recruit those candidates first, then turn to donors and say, “See? Here’s the product we have to offer: real, passionate candidates in every district, ready to earn your dollar and your vote”?

Comments are closed.