March 5, 2014
Netanyahu's inaction to Obama's provocations sends powerful message
Kerry, after apparent criticism by Schumer, seeks to allay skepticism on diplomacy
How to ruin a perfectly good kid in 10 simple steps
2014 Oscars played it safe, but was faith lost in the shuffle?
Apple joins Hobby Lobby in touting corporate values beyond profit
March 3, 2014
Alina Dain Sharon: In the Hebrew calendar, a leap year has extra month, not day
Latest Obama appointment to prove Prez set on emasculating so-called Israel Lobby
Jewish World Review
July 5, 2007
/ 19 Tamuz, 5767
Dick Morris & Eileen Mc Gann
The past and the future dueled with one another over the past six months as the Obama and Clinton campaigns each worked to raise funds for the coming election and the future won.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, married to the best fund-raiser on the planet, pursued the old, time-tested way of raising money by concentrating on wealthy donors and special-interest political-action committees. Even though Bill had refused to take PAC contributions during his 1992 race for president, Hillary openly and eagerly solicited them.
Meanwhile, Sen. Barack Obama pursued the new method of fund-raising by enlisting large numbers of individual donors online and abjuring PAC contributions. He reports having gotten donations from 258,000 separate individuals, while her donors total only about one quarter as many.
The future defeated the past, as Obama raised a reported $32 million for his primary campaign while Hillary came up short with only about $21 million (not counting funds that can't be spent unless she wins the nomination).
The battle of styles says less about who'll win the primary our bet is still Hillary than it does about where political fund-raising is headed. The Internet makes mass solicitation increasingly possible, since it is instantaneous and doesn't demand the large up-front outlays that needed for direct mail and telemarketing the comparable strategies in the old era.
Obama's advantage should continue to grow, since his staff reports that 90 percent of his donors can keep on giving - while a great many of Hillary's contributors are "maxed out" and can't give more.
More than any campaign-finance reform laws, Obama's success massive, rapid fund-raising without relying primarily on rich donors or special-interest PACs suggests that a purification of the financing of political campaigns may, indeed, be at hand.
As Americans become more and more used to backing up their electoral preferences with their credit cards and as they grow more comfortable with online giving, the power of the few to make themselves felt by massive campaign contributions appears to be ebbing. Obama has now taken to the next level the massive fund-raising pioneered by Howard Dean during his 2004 run.
In the old style of fund-raising, contacts with a few wealthy fat cats was the key. Wining and dining them at state dinners and in the Lincoln Bedroom was the key to President Bill Clinton's fund-raising for his own re-election in 1996 and his wife's Senate candidacy four years later. But in the new world, the list is everything. Using ideology or charismatic personal appeal to amass a large group of donors and keeping their e-names handy is the key to generating mega-bucks in the future.
Not only is mass fund-raising from hundreds of thousands of donors cleaner and less susceptible to special-interest favor-peddling, it's also faster, more effective and more cost-efficient than the old techniques ever were.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Dick Morris is author, most recently, of "Outrage: How Illegal Immigration, the United Nations, Congressional Ripoffs, Student Loan Overcharges, Tobacco Companies, Trade Protection, and Drug Companies Are Ripping Us Off . . . And". (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR.) Comment by clicking here.
Dick Morris Archives
© 2007, Dick Morris