Good Sunday morning. BEHIND THE CURTAIN -- "Obama looks to lock up big money: President's team eyes those who can max out donations," by Tribune's Tom Hamburger and Matea Gold "Presidential Partners asks supporters to commit $75,800 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint project of the president's Chicago-based campaign and the Democratic National Committee. That would put Democratic contributors at the maximum they are allowed to give national party committees for the 2012 cycle -- leaving them unable to donate to the party's congressional fundraising entities. .. While Obama continues to woo supporters at inexpensive fundraisers, his meetings with high rollers ... could undercut the image he has tried to craft. About 115 donors have signed up to be Presidential Partners, one of three major programs to offer special access to campaign officials in exchange for contributions. ...
Those words appeared my daily Politico email, Mike Allen's Political Playbook. So I went to the underlying article in The Chicago Tribune, from which let me offer two brief snips:
So far, about 115 donors have signed up for Presidential Partners, one of three major donor programs to offer special access to campaign officials in exchange for contributions.
Between January and May, the DNC raised $11 million from donors contributing more than $30,000 compared with just $3 million raised in that category by the Republican National Committee, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Big donations — those in amounts of $10,000 or above — represent 38% of the total raised in the early part of this year by the DNC, the Center found, compared with just 18% in that category for Republicans.
Now let's be clear - the money raised by the DNC will not all go to the President's reelection campaign. But the Obama campaign will have major control, through it's handpicked chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, as to where that money does go.
Meanwhile, anyone who maxes out through this approach will not be able to make direct contributions to the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They will still be able to contribute to individual candidates until they reach total federal ceiling of 117,000, of which 46,200 may be given to individual candidates (but 5,000 of that is included in the 75,800 being given in this particular effort) [source of figures from the Federal Election Commission].
I realize my title is provocative.
And I understand that such an approach is not unknown among Democratic Presidents running for reelection - we saw a similar approach from Bill Clinton in the 1996 cycle.
I also understand that the Obama campaign is rightly concerned about the impact of Citizens United upon the reelection chances of the President. But I have to wonder if this approach is somewhat shortsided.
I am somewhat a creature of the House - I know quite a few Democratic House Members, and knew personally more than a dozen of those defeated last year. I know how unhappy many are with this administration's handling of major policy issues.
I also know that many of those I know who were smaller contributors the last cycle will not contribute this time, even at the teaser rate of $5.00 at which you will have a (miniscule) chance of being one of 5 to win dinner with the President. For many of us, our financial situations are less secure- even in some cases perilous - as compared to last time. For another, many are at the minimum disappointed in this administration on many subject. I find such disappointment widespread among teachers and among those who thought they could trust the words offered by this President as a candidate that he knew the Constitution, had taught the Constitution, and would abide by the Constitution, with a clear implication that some of the things we found most objectionable in the previous administration would cease.
My title is provocative, but it is phrased in the form of a question.
So, take this piece of information, combine with what else you know, and how do YOU answer it?
I will be curious as to the responses of others.