Redstate

Earthen Vessels.

By Dan McLaughlin Posted in NRCC | NRSC | Redstate Roundtable | Republicans | RNC — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Dan McLaughlin: In today's campaign finance environment, you can support Republican candidates for public office in one of five ways (correct me if I am missing something here):

1. You can give to them directly through traditional fundraising.

2. You can identify and direct donations to particular candidates through web intermediaries like Rightroots, Big Red Tent, and Slatecard.

3. You can give to the formal party apparatus - the Republican National Committee (RNC), National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), or National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) - which then distribute funds to candidates as needed in their own judgment, as well as spending money and running ads for more general party-building activities.

4. You can support a PAC that, in turn, gives money to candidates, although in general that similarly means letting the PAC decide where they money should go.

5. Similarly, you can support advocacy groups (e.g., the Club for Growth) that get involved in campaigns.

Let's focus on #3. A lot of conservatives have been formally or informally boycotting some of these organizations for the past 2-3 years, in some cases due to protests on policy issues (e.g., immigration), but also in some cases due to frustration with the decisions made, most notoriously the NRSC's decision in to pour resources into defending more liberal incumbents in primary challenges by conservatives in Pennsylvana (Arlen Specter in 2004) and Rhode Island (Lincoln Chaffee in 2006), in Chaffee's case in a losing cause that drained away resources that could have been spent in close races in places like Ohio, Montana or Virginia.

The question is: should conservatives give money to these organizations, or some of them, or none?

Roundtable discussion below the fold...

Neil Stevens: Yes, conservatives should give to the national party. The RNC deserves conservative support for the same reason that Republican candidates deserve our support. Even when the party and its nominees are not uniformly conservative, conservatives have an obligation to be team players in order to gain credibility and a seat at the table.

Not that I think all conservatives have to give. Not everyone has the money, or tends to give money to political efforts at all, but I think those who do give should not leave the party out.

However the Congressional committees are an entirely different matter. NRCC chairman Cole is getting noticed for his failure to intervene in primaries, but I think we conservatives have no reason to expect this hands-off attitude to continue. The Congressional committees are run by the incumbents for the incumbents, and giving to them can undermine our own efforts to steer the party in the direction of our preference.

Mark Kilmer: It's up to the individual conservative. The money is used to support the Republican brand, not per se conservatism, so it's a nice spot to put your donations if you want to see your money go toward defeating Dems. If you want to donate to a candidate who agrees with your conservatism, give to the candidate.

Brad Smith: What if a person wants to support Republicans running for Senate or House, but is not enamored of the presidential ticket, where the RNC will spend most of its money? Isn't the NRSC or NRCC a better choice for that person than giving to the RNC?

Dan McLaughlin: If you support the NRSC and NRCC's approach, yeah, that's a way to do it. If not, you are probably best off sticking with supporting individual candidates.

Personally, although I have been holding back I will probably give to the RNC again at some point in the near future, but the NRSC in particular I am done with. At least the NRCC serves some function - it's hard for even activists to follow enough House races to know where and when to direct donations to make maximum impact. But in Senate races, it's easy enough to pick the people you like and support them. In fact, it may be that the *only* remaining function of the NRSC in the future will be to beat back primary challenges.

Neil Stevens: Good question. That might work to send a message that you're still on the team. Because that's what it's about really: Conservatives don't want to look too selfish to the rest of the party. If we're ready and willing to take help from everyone else, but disappear when someone not of our own is the nominee, then our credibility in the party goes way down.

Leon Wolf: Well, the NRSC's most important function in the coming era would hypothetically be candidate recruitment. It doesn't help the NRSC's case that they have been spectacular failures in both 2006 and 2008.

For the sake of argument, however, we might consider that all of this should perhaps not be laid at the feet of the NRSC. Smart politicians know that it's important to avoid losing your first "big" election, and smart politicians could see the disaster coming in 2006, and CW has it that another one is coming in '08.

Brad Smith: There is another consideration, though, which is that you can contribute a lot more money to a party committee, such as the NRSC, than to a candidate. So if you are a large donor, and want to help the GOP keep the Senate, that’s a key place to give.

Adam C: 1) Leon: "Smart politicians know that it's important to avoid losing your first "big" election, and smart politicians could see the disaster coming in 2006, and CW has it that another one is coming in '08."

Well said and important. Whining about the NRSC will not make GOV Hoeven (ND), REP Capito (WV) or Huckabee (AR) run for Senate. The R brand sucks and the 2008 numbers look atrocious for everything except, possibly, McCain.

2) Donate to politicians you like directly, or, alternatively through a group you want to promote (i.e. Club for Growth, RedState, Slatecard, Facebook, etc). If you are big gun, give to the RNC.

Feddie: To me, it's a question of stewardship. What have these organizations done with the money that has been given to them in the past? I think the folks heading up these groups believe that party loyalty ("Go GOP!") and fear ("Just think what the liberals will do if they take back the White House!!!!") are enough to motivate people to give; but many conservatives are no longer persuaded by such tactics (if they ever were). Bottom line: The RNC et al need to make their respective cases to conservatives. And right now, I see no reason to give money to them. I would much rather give money to a candidate directly, support the local or state party, or fund other conservative organizations like the Federalist Society (which, btw, has done more for the conservative movement than the RNC will ever dream of doing).

Dan McLaughlin: True, but the Federalists by nature can't move the ball an inch if someone isn't out winning elections to put good ideas into practice.

And as to Adam's point, well, there's a self-fulfilling prophecy there, too. The brand won't get better by losing more elections and letting more territory go uncontested.

Pejman Yousefzadeh: I generally agree with Neil. If the rule was that we could withhold support from the RNC whenever we are unhappy with its various choices, then the RNC would be in perpetual crisis as moderates, conservatives, libertarians and libertarian-conservatives in the GOP--have I missed anyone?--would be constantly threatening to withhold support.

Feddie brings up an interesting point concerning other organizations, however. The good thing about the Federalist Society and other such groups is that they are very active in reaching out to libertarians and conservatives. The RNC and other party organizations should be, and doubtless are aware of just how much groups like the Federalist Society are doing on this score. I am in favor of competition in all sorts of marketplaces, including the political donations marketplace and so, I would hope that the message would get through to the RNC and other party organizations that independent groups are doing far more to get our dollars than they appear to be doing. Maybe that will get the RNC and other party organizations to be more effective and aggressive in reaching out to people who would naturally be their supporters.

Neil Stevens: For my part, were I to donate for party recruitment and development, I'd give to state parties before I'd give to the national Congressional committees.

Leon Wolf: Yeah, but giving to all 50 state parties, or even 30, or even 10, is just not feasible for most donors.

Neil Stevens: No, but if conservatives in each state look out for their own, the job will get done.

Brad Smith: In the FWIW category, back before soft money to party committees was banned by McCain-Feingold, the RNC often gave funds to other conservative groups.

Leon Wolf (to Neil): This ignores the reality that many conservatives live in states where the critical races are all but guaranteed to go GOP already. So, while they may wish to give some money to their own state GOP to maintain current levels, they may have a more compelling interest in helping out elsewhere.

Brad Smith (to Neil): Not necessarily. That is, sometimes you can snatch a race with an infusion of cash from other states. Giving to the state party in Utah or Idaho may not matter much if you want to win races this year in Louisiana and New Hampshire.

Kevin Holtsberry: I don't give money to the RNC mostly because I don't have it. But I also don't give them money because that means a never ending stream of solicitations and direct mail. It is like agreeing to spam for ten years. I would give them $50 if they promise not to contact me for two years . . .

I know nothing about high level donors, but for my level it is much more satisfying to give to individual candidates (on your own or via particular groups).

Dan McLaughlin: Yeah, although actually I prefer to get spammed by the RNC than by 15 different candidates.

Ben Domenech (to Adam): 1) Fine, but out of your list, only Hoeven would've won. Huckabee was wise for his own part, if not the party's best interest, to avoid running for Senate against a Democrat with +70% approval ratings who's pro-gun, pro-traditional marriage, has a good position on the war (hell, Pryor was one of two - TWO - Dems to vote against withdrawal), and who voted for Roberts and Alito. Where's the deciding issue in that race...prison reform? As for Capito, she can't use the leverage of the gun issue or the abortion issue against her opponents, because WV is entirely represented by Democrats who are exactly at the same point on both counts (heck, the NRA refuses to endorse in her races for that reason, and she isn't even good on partial-birth!). Rockefeller would've kicked her ass.

2) Yes.

Adam C: Ben, I don't pass judgment on their odds of winning. All were greater than 5% and less than 90%. And your point is actually exactly my point. Whining about the NRSC doesn't change the calculus for those individuals. Making the R brand better or D brand worse in these states (esp. WV and AR) is what would help. Whining about "recruitment" doesn't fix that problem.

Ben Domenech: I know this is off topic, but since odds of winning tend to factor into these decisions, I would actually argue that if Shelley Capito was pro-life and better on guns and more pro-earmark than her opponent (which is hard to do when that opponent is Rockefeller), her odds would've been more like 45%-80%. That doesn't exactly have anything to do with the R brand or D brand, or with the NRSC.

haystack: I know I'm expected to behave in this thread, given it will appear in a post...but let me suggest the problem lies in the question itself, in deference to the unspoken reality of there being no direct correlation these days between "Conservative" and "The Rebublican Party". It seems the place to put the money nowadays is in the specific candidates-"the machine" doesn't give a flip about your ideology...they want your money to seat candidates that aren't Democrats...hell-we can push for that for FREE at the ballot box-why pay salaries to admins and techno-geeks?

I say no...no money to ANY of these bums-give it to your local guys...build the farm team-there is much darkness ahead thru 2012.

Mark Kilmer: I said something similar, 'Stack. If your first concern is your brand of conservatism, you give to individual candidates. If your first concern is the Republican brand and/or defeating Dems, you give to the party, There is something to be said for both.

haystack: agreed...I'm just "madder" about it
;-)