Lessons From GOP Cantor's Stunning Primary Loss

Stunned political pundits are trying to explain the Virginia primary loss of GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Are there lessons for campaigns and causes charging toward the midterm elections? Cantor's loss certainly was not due to a lack of money; Cantor outspent his Republican primary rival Dave Brat by 26 to 1 courtesy of big-business donors. So those facing big-money challengers take heart, and candidates with overflowing coffers take heed.  Fundraising that earns a "crony capitalist" label can come back to bite you: Cantor's unabashed big-donor image allowed Brat to successfully appeal to voters' populist sentiments. A recent analysis in The Atlantic magazine sums up other Cantor vulnerabilities that candidates will want to avoid. For example, don't go wrong on litmus issues: Cantor's support of certain pieces of immigration reform allowed Tea Party-stalwart Brat to win Conservative votes by accusing Cantor of "blanket amnesty" support. Next, remember that personality counts: Cantor, who has been described as arrogant and self-serving, apparently made more enemies than friends on his ambitious climb to House Majority Leader via leaps from moderate Republican to Tea Party and back toward the middle, and so earned distrust, dislike and Conservative responses ranging from apathy to outright opposition during the primary. And never lose touch with the home front: Cantor didn't pay attention to his constituent base while he played Washington power games and wooed donors. Plus, he then sought to change state central committee rules before the primary to minimize right-wing activists, a misguided effort to "vigorously poke a nest of already-angry hornets" as one Republican operative told The Atlantic. For more, see the article at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/six-theories-for-eric-cantors-loss/372552/

Direct Mail Still Key Tool in Conservative Fundraising

How are conservative campaigns raising money in the first quarter of 2014? Direct mail take bow. A recent Washington Post story looked at the top PACs in terms of fundraising, with a special focus on the National Draft Ben Carson Committee, which raised nearly $2.4 million -- more than half a million more than Ready for Hillary. Carson is an African American former neurosurgeon whose views on social issues and "Obamacare" are favored by the far right. The Draft Carson PAC also spent $2.44 million, with half of that going to mailing list rental and a direct fundraising agency. Why go for direct mail when it is cheaper to harvest donations online? For strong candidates and super PACs, the big initial investment builds a donor list that will be leveraged for funds and votes in future, and costs are cushioned by wealthy supporters. It's a lot riskier investment for long-shot candidates, but conservatives need to tap older voters, who are reached via mailbox rather than online, notes the Post article, so minorities and tea-party-affiliated Republicans (like Carson) are taking a chance on direct mail. Asserts Base Connect, a direct mail agency for conservative candidates and causes, on its website: "Direct mail fundraising is not the fastest way to raise money, or the least expensive. But over the long run, when certain conditions are met, direct mail has repeatedly proven to be the most effective and reliable vehicle for raising money." Many conservative hopefuls are betting on it. For more, see the Post story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/17/the-draft-ben-carson-super-pac-raised-a-massive-amount-of-money-over-the-last-three-months-how/

Democrat Fundraisers Get Windfall in Shutdown Fight

So far, the Capitol Hill standoff over the budget, the debt ceiling and "Obamacare" has clearly benefited Democratic fundraisers, according to the Federal Election Commission and reports from independent and party-affiliated groups. In September, before the government shutdown, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which funds campaigns of candidates for the House of Representatives, raised $8.4 million, topping the $5.3 million of its Republican counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Similarly, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) raised more in September than the Republican National Committee (RNC) for the first time in 2013, with the Dems raking in $7.4 million, up from just $4.3 million in August, compared with the GOP's $7.1 million. The Democrats got some encouragement for their Senate hopes, too; the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) raised more than its Republican counterpart in September, with $4.6 million to the GOP $3.6 million. Meanwhile, the "Obamacare" controversy benefited independent fundraisers at both ends of the political spectrum. Organizing for Action, the group that grew out of Obama's successful re-election campaign, raised more than $7.7 million from July through September to promote Obamacare. In opposition, the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), co-founded by former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a leader in the Tea Party movement, brought in $2.1 million in September, up from $1.5 million in August. The allied conservative Club for Growth's political action committee raised almost $127,000 in September, and its Super PAC, an independent group that can raise unlimited amounts without disclosing contributors, tallied another $282,000, which it added to $683,770 collected in August. The independent conservative fundraising isn't good news for some Republicans in upcoming elections, however. For example, the SCF has endorsed Matt Bevin, a Tea Party challenger to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. See more details at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-23/news/sns-rt-us-usa-fiscal-fundraising-20131023_1_obamacare-fight-shutdown-healthcare-law

Data Debunks IRS Rationale for 'Tea Party' Scandal

Top Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials have been saying that a “significant increase” in applications from advocacy groups seeking tax-exempt status spurred its Cincinnati office in 2010 to filter those requests by using politically loaded phrases such as “Tea Party” and “patriots.” Officials have cited an increase from about 1,500 applications for 501(c)(4) “social welfare” group tax-exempt status in 2010 and to nearly 3,500 in 2012. But the data doesn't bear out the IRS explanation, notes Doug Donovan in an article for The Chronicle of Philanthropy. The IRS scrutiny of conservative applications began in March 2010, before an uptick could have been observed, according to data contained in the audit from the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration. Plus, the number of 501(c)(4) applications for all of 2010 was actually less than in 2009: According to the audit, 1,735 groups applied for 501(c)(4) exemption for the federal fiscal year that ended September 30, 2010 -- six months after the IRS began its scrutiny -- which was actually down slightly from 1,751 the prior year. The applications total did grow to 2,265 during the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2011, and to 3,357 for 2012, but by then the criteria the IRS was using to flag groups had changed to include searches for groups with names that contained “Bill of Rights,” “educating on the constitution,” and “limiting/expanding government.” For more, see the story at https://philanthropy.com/article/IRS-Rationale-for-Tea-Party/139277/