In preparation for his failed bid for Congress in 1978 a young George Bush went to a Republican party candidate school, where he was visited with a flash of inspiration. ”I’ve got the greatest idea of how to raise money for the campaign,” he told David Dreier, now a California Congressman. ”Have your mother send a letter to your family’s Christmas-card list! I just did, and I got $350 000.”
The Bushes have never had much problem raising money. They are well connected in politics and deeply embedded into the corporate world over generations, and money sticks to them like scandal stuck to the Clintons — partly because of what they do but largely because of who they are.
President Bush, however, has turned it into an art form. This week he kicks off a fund-raising binge during which he aims to collect $20-million in just two weeks — only slightly less than all the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls managed to raise in three months combined.
The following fortnight will see the president attend seven fundraisers, vice president Dick Cheney four, and first lady Laura Bush three. Bush-Cheney 04 Inc, the election committee they established less than a month ago, is hoping to set records in fundraising that both convince the Republican party base of his invincibility and intimidate the Democrats before they have even started.
Tomorrow he will be the guest of honour at a $2 000 a head reception at the Washington Hilton. After that he will head to Georgia, New York, and California, while his wife, Laura, and Mr Cheney concentrate primarily on swing states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
During the last elections Bush broke the mould of presidential fundraising, forgoing public financing and the limits that come with it, and collecting more than $100-million. For the next election, standing as an incumbent with audiences looking back on September 11 and ahead to the fruits of his tax cuts, he is looking to double his money. Nobody, in either party, doubts his ability to do so.
He could raise as much as $5-million next week in New York in one night alone — $2-million more than what is believed to be the record for the most successful fundraiser to date, held in the city by Bush in 1999. The event, an evening reception at the New York Sheraton, will bring together leading lights in finance, insurance, law and construction.
”This thing is blown wide open,” James Ortenzio, chairman of the Republican committee in Manhattan, told the New York Observer. ”The response for this event, and the other Bush events, defies the political laws of physics.”
Effortless
The beauty of it is that fundraising for Bush is now virtually effortless: his presidential presence is sufficient to draw in donations. All his Republican supporters have to do is riffle through their rollerdexes in search of more phone numbers. ”No one is turning down any calls or saying ‘I don’t want to contribute’,” said one of Bush’s most active fundraisers.
By contrast, raising money for Bush’s Democratic candidates is hard graft. ”The fundamental difference is that Bush himself spends no time on it,” Steve Elmendorf, a senior aide to Democratic hopeful Dick Gephardt who spends eight hours a day seeking contributions, told the New York Times. ”He gets on a plane, shows up for 15 minutes, and leaves. And each of these [Democratic] candidates spends volumes of time on the phone asking for money.”
The Republicans began asking for money two weeks after Bush’s prime time landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, in a Viking jet, to declare the war against Iraq had ended. ”It’s just a matter of finding someone who hasn’t gotten calls from other people making calls.”
In 2000 Bush created a network of fundraisers who sought donations on his behalf. More than 200 people managed to collect at least $100 000 and earned themselves the title ”pioneers”, which facilitated their access to the higher reaches of the administration. This year they have created a new, higher rank for the chief money-makers — ”rangers”. They have pledged to raise at least $200 000. Top of the pile, however, remain the ”regents” who can conjure up at least $250 000.
Democratic efforts pale by comparison, partly because there are so many candidates at this stage but also because their base is far poorer. Last Saturday Senator John Edwards, a Democratic contender from North Carolina, held a fundraiser for $50 a head in Raleigh, in his home state.
The Democrats may be forced to make Bush’s financial superiority an issue. ”The way he raises money shows what kind of trouble democracy is in in this country,” said Howard Dean, another Democratic presidential candidate.
”The Democrats have no choice but to try to make money Bush’s liability,” one Republican fundraiser told the New York Times. ”They have to try to tie the money to special interests, tie the special interests to unpopular issues, and then tie it all around Bush’s neck. The problem is that Democrats are taking special interest money, too.”
Momentum
Money in American politics has its own momentum. Potential donors assess a candidate’s viability not just by their standing in the polls but also by the size of their coffers.
Those who appear to have the best chance of winning then attract more money while those with less money lag behind or drop out. By racing ahead in fundraising so early, Bush is making a statement about his intention to dominate the race. Such a strategy is not without problems. During the last election bad weather forced Bush to miss an event at a school in Rhode Island. He did, though, make it to a $1 000 a head Republican bash that was next on his schedule. Seizing on the blunder, the Democratic challenger, Al Gore, rearranged his plans so he could go the school, leaving Bush in disgrace. ”You’re getting a lot of attention at this school,” Gore told the children. ”And you know why? Because your education is the most important thing to the people who came here.”
Democrats hope that similar gaffes, allied to a strong campaign that motivates their base, could yet neutralise Bush’s cash advantage.” It’s no surprise to anyone that the money Bush raises is going to be off the charts,” said Democratic consultant Howard Wolfson. ”Does having these resources help him? Absolutely. Is it going to re-elect him president? That remains to be seen.”
It’s all about the cash, stupid
Mark Hanna, who raised more than $70-million in today’s money as manager of William McKinley’s 1896 presidential election campaign, said: ”There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember the second one.”
The cost of a presidential candidacy has been rising steadily for decades. In 1980 the combined field of would-be presidents raised $92-million. In 2000 the figure was $351-million. In every election since 1976 the candidate who has raised most money by the end of the year preceding the election has gone on to win his party’s nomination.
During the 1988 election George Bush the elder and Michael Dukakis each received $46-million in public funds. The public payments were intended to keep the candidates from soliciting funds from major contributors. But the Bush and Dukakis campaigns then raised a further $25-million each in $100 000 donations through national Republican and Democratic parties.
A fundraising dinner organised by the Republican National Committee in January 1996 promised those who donated $250,000 private meetings with House and Senate committee chairmen, lunch with Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker, and a private reception with Republican presidential candidates.
In the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign, 81 people raised more than $53,000 each. Of these, 20 became ambassadors or received some other choice offer from the administration. In addition, all but 28 were treated to at least one of the infamous White House coffees. There were allegations of the misuse of White House facilities – coffee mornings, dinners and overnight stays in the Lincoln bedroom – related to Clinton’s re-election campaign.
During the same campaign Al Gore drew controversy for his visit to a Buddhist temple in California, where campaign contributions were made in violation of a law banning fundraising at religious sites. He has repeatedly said he did not know the visit was a fundraising event. – Guardian Unlimited Â