Money is apparently no object...
Brace yourself. The next 13 days are going to be like nothing any of us have seen before in terms of local elections. And, of course, I'm talking about "the" election - the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.
Now that primary challenger Ned Lamont has topped the $3 million mark in personal contributions to his campaign, a clause in the federal campaign financing laws allows incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman to accept larger contributions from individuals. The limit is $2,100 per person. This provision in the law, however, now allows Lieberman to accept twice as much from individuals $4,200. And that doesn't include the other little provision in the law that would allow individual to make the maximum contributions towards a "primary" election, and then do the same again for a "general" election.
Why the emphasis on money? Simple - TV advertising. It can get expensive, and we can expect to see lots of TV ads in the coming 13 days. The Lieberman camp is already putting together an ad featuring former President Bill Clinton. Lamont, who according to his FEC filing, had only $276,976 cash on hand as of June 30 - that after raising $1.9 million (of which $1.1 million was his own) and spending it. You can expect the Lamont campaign will counter any Lieberman ads with their own.
The other issue where money is important is the field operation. At this stage of the campaign, it becomes the most important part of the campaign. Let's face it, there are few registered Democrats (if any at all that are unaware of this race). The only question is how many of them will come out and vote? And that is what the field operations are all about -turning out the vote. And that, too, can cost money.
Now that primary challenger Ned Lamont has topped the $3 million mark in personal contributions to his campaign, a clause in the federal campaign financing laws allows incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman to accept larger contributions from individuals. The limit is $2,100 per person. This provision in the law, however, now allows Lieberman to accept twice as much from individuals $4,200. And that doesn't include the other little provision in the law that would allow individual to make the maximum contributions towards a "primary" election, and then do the same again for a "general" election.
Why the emphasis on money? Simple - TV advertising. It can get expensive, and we can expect to see lots of TV ads in the coming 13 days. The Lieberman camp is already putting together an ad featuring former President Bill Clinton. Lamont, who according to his FEC filing, had only $276,976 cash on hand as of June 30 - that after raising $1.9 million (of which $1.1 million was his own) and spending it. You can expect the Lamont campaign will counter any Lieberman ads with their own.
The other issue where money is important is the field operation. At this stage of the campaign, it becomes the most important part of the campaign. Let's face it, there are few registered Democrats (if any at all that are unaware of this race). The only question is how many of them will come out and vote? And that is what the field operations are all about -turning out the vote. And that, too, can cost money.
posted by Ray Hackett at 10:07 AM
2 Comments:
When I was working on the Ed Munster campaigns we never imagined figures like these for challangers. Only now, its the Democrats that are the challangers. And no matter how much money they raise, its not enough.
Maybe they need more than just money. Maybe they need a better message.
A few years back, after the elections were all over and done with, I had a conversation with a political consultant from Washington and asked why they do that if people complain so much about the tone and negativity of the ads.
He said...because they work.
Bottom line - in the "business" of getting elected - and I do mean business considering the amounts of money being spent on that effort - the bottom line is winning. Period.If its message that can achieve that goal, they'll all have messages. If it's money for ads that are less than completely factual...that's what we'll get.
At least until that point when the electorate decides enough is enough.
Post a Comment
<< Home