OK, so fundraising isn’t everyone’s thing. I have always found it odd that politicians who are so eager to ask for peoples’ votes can’t ask for peoples’ money.
[read_more]
As a unit chair, I routinely helped our local candidates with this aspect- because that way, we got the best candidates possible, not those who could raise the most (and no, the two aren’t the same. Case in point: Romney could raise plenty, but he was awful as a candidate).
But the WaPo wants us to think that all donors have abandoned RPV and are forever lost as long as conservatives control State Central.
But this betrays a lack of basic fundraising knowledge on their part. So, from a fundraising professional’s perspective…
To have an informed discussion, let’s establish some basics.
- Donors aren’t monolithic; they come in different flavors just like everyone else.
There are “ideological donors”, who will vote and give to ideological moderates or ideological conservatives or social conservatives.
There are also “access donors”, who only give to get access to power and so the politician is beholden to them. Johnnie Williams, for instance.
There are also small donors- anyone below $200, say. These tend to be your grassroots folks, more ideologically driven. Direct mail and email fundraising does great for them, as does certain kinds of events.
- There are multiple ways to reach donors
You can have the principal call the donors (in this case, Whitbeck or Snyder);
You can do direct mail to thousands of potential donors;
You can fundraise by email (which RPV already does, quite a bit);
You can do events (which there is more potential for, given the proximity to DC);
You can do awesome things that inspire people to give to you just because they hear about you.
- Donors have a TON of things they can give to these days
Candidates, nonprofits, issue initiatives, PACs, SuperPACs, etc. Parties don’t inspire people to give unless they are doing well and have influence.
- Don’t believe for a moment the general chatter
Parties exist to elect their candidates, not to stockpile cash. The oft quoted numbers on debt and cash on hand in January are noteworthy, but largely irrelevant.
Why?
Because RPV went all-out to try to elect our congressional and US Senate candidates in 2014. If you look at monthly cash on hand, RPV was flush in September before lowering the sledgehammer on Mark Warner in October and November. Yes, it ended in debt- but look how close Ed Gillespie got. Gillespie almost won, and if he did, would anyone be complaining about RPV going into debt to do it? It may have been a calculated risk, but RPV in 2014 did what a party is supposed to do- try to win the election.
I would have been worried if we lost but for some reason RPV had stockpiled huge sums of cash it still had on hand after.
- The apparent donor troubles are first and foremost a product of backlash by the consultant class
For the first time in living memory the consultant class doesn’t control RPV, so they foment dissent and the appearance of dysfunction (along with active discouragement of donors) as part of a considered strategy to retake control.
WaPo is letting themselves be used as tools in this effort. In my mind, anyone who runs crying to the WaPo about how conservativey-conservative the party is, has abdicated any real role in it going forward.
Knowing these important dynamics, what’s the strategy?
I think you play the hand you’re given.
You can cobble together a coalition of grassroots, ideological conservatives, and social conservative donors to keep RPV funded. You don’t need access donors and ideological moderates to do it- there’s frankly not that many of them anyway, they are just loud. They also tend to follow the siren call of the Ray Allens of this world, who has stated he wanted to bankrupt RPV.
Trust me, there’s more than enough if you play it right. But trying to appease the ideological moderates or the access donors (particularly when we don’t have a single statewide Republican) is a losing fight. So why bother? The party shouldn’t be for sale, anyway.
Everyone constantly underestimates the value and power of the grassroots as a fundraising source. RPV used to be able to tap this source robustly; it could do so again. Different candidates have done so to make up for not being able to tap access donors or ideologically opposed donors.
Also to consider: Direction of the party
A crucial part of why the grassroots hasn’t stepped up so far to help the party is the results coming from its elected officials in DC and Richmond.
Richmond Republicans gave us a massive corruption scandal (thanks to access donor Johnnie Williams) and the largest tax hike in Virginia history in 2013.
DC Republicans folded like a cheap suit on immigration, spending, Obamacare, and a host of other “priorities”.
Why would the party’s base signal its approval of this by investing in the party?
Matt Hall did a good piece (no I don’t agree with all of it, but the tone and direction is MUCH better and worthy of praise) on donors looking for ROI.
If you’re a conservative, where’s your ROI?
Now, very little of this is accountable to RPV. But RPV is taking the hits for it nonetheless.
So where to go from here?
I think RPV needs to reshape itself into an entity that defends its brand better by holding its officeholders to account. A franchise fee has been floated as a way to keep elected officials honest (and loyal). The chairman could endorse to preserve the brand.
But make no mistake, there is a real question here: What does the Republican Party stand for? Does it stand for anything?
If you want to brand around the Creed, that’s not a bad place to start. But then you must defend that brand to have the party mean something to anyone- voters, donors, grassroots, anyone.
If anyone can do it, it’s Chairman Whitbeck and SCC. But it’s time to be brave- define and defend the brand. That is the missing ingredient that is key for donors to return.
22 comments
Take the money out of politics.
The Washington Post editorial board sincerely inquiries in its best heartfelt manner. “What do you get when you cross a ‘reformicon’ with a Virginia conservative”? Punchline – eight years of Hillary Clinton and a broken and broke state Republican party gazing at its collective navel. If cash was the way “forward” Eric Cantor would still be receiving his mail at Ford Housing Office Bldg., 358 Washington, DC rather then address unknown. Might be worth the effort to try and locate some non retread candidates wiith a set of fresh voter centric ideas, other then to ‘reform’ themselves back onto the K street gravy train, and put the party unequivocally behind them . Just a thought.
Well said.
Very good analysis! RINOs and nitpickers will conplain.
it may have been on this blog that I was told that not only was my time & money not welcome, neither was my vote. it was not the most effective fundraising plea.
Sigh, I seriously doubt someone here told you that Republicans don’t want your money or your vote. Your whining is growing tiresome.
the drama….it burns
whining? are you kidding? its more like an incessant nagging: please don’t throw away what you consider “evil” Establishment Republicans, Republicans who understand legal precedent, Republicans who might be social liberals & Republicans who see winning elections as THE strategy. I realize that we all need bind together to win; I wish the social conservatives could see it, too.
Winning elections is not an end. Its merely a means to good policy. But the reason for the split in the party is that some Republicans are willing to accept bad policy to win power. And to most of us, including those who would donate, that is NOT acceptable.
You’re a fool Kelley, and the reason . Quit whining about your feelings, and have some principles. Sheesh.
ask Mark Obenshain how many votes of fools or social liberals or evil Establishment or those who believe in legal precedent (as he does) does he wish he had when he ran for AG?
OR ask yourself this question: if your principles trump pragmatism, then why don’t you urge RPV to return Jeb Bush’s $10K donation?
Kelley, just out of curiosity, what do you mean by he “believe[s] in legal precedent”? You say that like its a distinguishing characteristic.
Steve, the Constitutionalists that I’ve seen, heard or read (some gravitate towards the GOP) claim that valid laws are only those shown in the 4 corners of the Constitution itself. Legal precedent, by its very definition, is an evolution of interpretation by the judiciary. & while not written in the Constitution, it carries the force of law.
have you not bumped into these Constitutionalists?
Precedent is fine and the backbone of jurisprudence and most common law when it is clearly founded in the text of the Constitution but that is hardly where we are today when you look at the interpretative rulings and intent models being promulgated in the vast majority of law schools and US court rooms. I believe that is what the gentleman is trying to convey. Justice Scalia has lectured widely on the topic and written several excellent books on the subject, “A Matter of Interpretation – Federal Courts and the Law” Princeton University Press being one. The legal profession has unfortunately strayed very far from its traditional philosophical roots that laws mean what they actually say, not what legislators “unexpressed” intent meant to say but just didn’t see fit to write it into the text itself. You have to look no further then Chief Justice Roberts’ legalistic mental contortions on his recent ruling on the Obama administration’s The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to see a clear case in point. To many of today’s legal minds would seem better suited in the fields of social work or political activism then the science of construing Constitutional text. I believe that is his point of if so he has made an important one.
Republicans winning elections then ruling and spending like Democrats doesn’t feel like a winning strategy to me.
I have never said otherwise but that doesn’t mean I don’t want principled conservatives in office. If establishment Republicans can bring themselves to support those with principles and convictions, that’s great.
How bout’ my whining?
Republicans were at their best when they at least gave the appearance of giving a damn about Joe Average Citizen. That was long ago and far away. Why should the grassroots support these politicians when the first thing they do is law and order the heck out of Joe while giving Get Out of Jail Free cards to their cash cow cronies? There hasn’t been a citizen’s party for at least ten years. Parties are supposed to be about The People. Otherwise why have them at all?
The Rebublican Creed is a great place to start. But I am also concerned with our lack of respect for property rights. I am very concerned about 2 national issues, the federal debt, and runaway money printing by the FED. Immigration is also a problem when native american workers have a mortgage and monthly bills at a given income, and foreign workers come in working for so much less that the American worker is displaced, and loses his or her home, and standard of living.
Sort. Of….
I liked it too, but not as much as the kick-ass meme.
Sort of complimented……….I guess, hey Ill take any praise I can get……