Draining the GOP bank?

Nancy Pelosi said she was ready to drain the GOP swamp.  Well, I'm ready to drain the GOP bank.

Reacting to this article on TPMCafe, "NRCC Spends Nearly $40 Million In Seven Weeks!" I started to wonder about the convergence of current planned spending by the party, the campaign committees, the PACs, 527s and candidates, the party's willingness to borrow funds for a final push, along with our new push to get 'safe' candidates to throw some extra cash into the fray, plus the obvious signs of K Street begining to hedge their financial bets with outlays on our side:  Can we spend the GOP into looking up the financial hill at the Democrats?

The GOP fundraising has been hit hard, and they seem to be digging deep into their reserves, the money George Bush et al having been conjuring up since Nov 2004.  Meanwhile most of our fundraising has been accomplished this calendar year, and sometimes at traditionally slow periods, like the Netroots August push.  I believe the netroots retain an advantage in 'instant' fundraising for a candidate or issue of note.  We don't need to bring out the big-wigs or hired guns to drive funding...we have to present clear concise reasoning and ask a lot of people for a little help.

If we succeed in forcing the GOP to spend spend spend NOW, we can turn the tables on them heading into '08.  Especially if K Street starts sending more money to us, and less to them.  And also especially if the GOP 'leadership' continues to discourage their own supporters in both governing and campaigning.

I think that aspect certainly answers for me the question "Should Democrats take lobbyist money?"  Yes, because then the GOP isn't getting it.

But can we grow this years fundraising into fruitful year in and year out success?  Can the personal fundraising system allow some of the big money donors and K Street money to flow to liberal think-tanks and advocacy groups? (Some of this is already occuring) If we can convince our candidates they can rely on us for a larger share of fundraising, we can really begin to build out the necessary infrastructure lead the communications and policy race.

•  If Republicans lose big

  in November, it is going to be much harder for them to find donors in the next two years.

  by CryMeARiver on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 06:35:39 PM PDT

•  They are spending, but not replenishing

  I have a feeling that the repub big donors have written off 06 election by now. They will not be contributing anymore for this election cycle. They don't want to throw away money to a losing election.

  So they have to make do with what they already have.  That's why you see all this scrambling and reallocating funds in the last few days. They are in panic mode.  And no new money is coming.

  by ecoast on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 06:36:38 PM PDT

•  I've been wondering about this

  A Democratic candidate runs short of funds and we - the average voters - hear about it and respond quickly, often immediately on the Internet.  Do the Republicans have a comparable system?  I think they can outdo us with  big name, big bucks fundraisers but I agree with ecoast that those are probably more likely to be one-time contributions from a relatively small pool of donors.  

  As for taking K Street money, I'm conflicted.  My U.S. Representative, John Dingell, seems to take his share of corporate donations and still is a very reliable Democrat.  I'm not so sure I trust all politicians to be as independent.  It will take constant vigilance on the part of voters to make sure Democrats don't become as corrupt as Republicans if they take lobbyist money, once we get the majority again.

  by myrealname on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 06:57:56 PM PDT

  •  Dingell

    is quite good for a "corporate whore", but do remember that he is a slave to the auto industry and not so good on the environment.

    by IhateBush on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:03:18 PM PDT

    •  Good point

      Since he is my representative, I, like many (most?) of his constituents, also have a connection to the auto industry so that is less of an concern for me.  I think the environment is very important but I also think it is rather more complex than buzzwords like "Canadian trash" and "air pollution" would indicate. I've got issues with Stabenow and her focus on landfills (kind of a local, personal thing), and I've seen the results of some good intentions by environmentalists that don't impress me.  So anyway, I'm o.k. with Dingell - he's better than some others who are supposedly representing me.

      by myrealname on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:47:57 PM PDT

      •  I hate to say this

        In the days before Delay, corporations gave nearly equally to both d's and r's.  They knew that in order to keep both groups happy.  My guess is that most corporations will be sitting still in fear of irritating the incoming d control.  The only corporations which will continue to fund r's are the ones directly sucking off the government. McGraw Hill, Halliburton, Boeing etc.

        by jas1984 on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:45:24 PM PDT