Monkeyleg
Member.
Yes, yes, I know. GW and some Republicans went along with Campaign Finance Reform, and for every bad reason that I can think of. Still, I find this funny:
********************************
Democrats Discovering Campaign Law's Cost
The evidence is growing that Democrats shot themselves in the foot by forcing passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law restricting what had been unlimited "soft money" donations to political parties.
A report released yesterday by the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, found that, contrary to common perceptions, Republicans have a big advantage over Democrats in donations from small donors, while Democrats are king among only the biggest.
The study, analyzing donations during the 2002 campaign cycle, found that those little guys giving less than $200 to federal candidates, parties or leadership political action committees contributed 64 percent of their money to Republicans. By contrast, those fat cats giving $1 million or more contributed a lopsided 92 percent to Democrats. The only group favoring Democrats, in fact, were contributors giving more than $100,000.
"The findings illustrate the Republicans' strong advantage over Democrats in the current system," the center concluded. That's for sure. With the McCain-Feingold law capping total contributions at $95,000 per person, the Democrats are plain out of luck.
The analysis also found an extension of the gender gap into political contributions. Women who listed an employer or income-generating profession gave 61 percent of their political money to Democrats, while women who declared themselves "homemakers" or named an occupation that doesn't produce income gave 55 percent of their political contributions to Republicans. Overall, women gave 53 percent of donations to Democrats, and men gave 54 percent to Republicans.
One wild card: Because women gave 26 percent of "hard money" -- the contributions made directly to candidates that had always been regulated -- but only 15 percent of the now-restricted soft money, wealthy couples may partly offset the new soft money restrictions by having women increase their hard-money contributions.
Less surprising was the finding that 94 percent of congressional candidates who outspent their opponents won their races.
The study also found that only one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans gave $1,000 or more. Total spending in the 2002 cycle by candidates, parties and interest groups was $2.2 billion, down from the $2.9 billion spent in 2000 but significantly more than the $1.7 billion spent in the 1998 midterm election.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
********************************
Democrats Discovering Campaign Law's Cost
The evidence is growing that Democrats shot themselves in the foot by forcing passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law restricting what had been unlimited "soft money" donations to political parties.
A report released yesterday by the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, found that, contrary to common perceptions, Republicans have a big advantage over Democrats in donations from small donors, while Democrats are king among only the biggest.
The study, analyzing donations during the 2002 campaign cycle, found that those little guys giving less than $200 to federal candidates, parties or leadership political action committees contributed 64 percent of their money to Republicans. By contrast, those fat cats giving $1 million or more contributed a lopsided 92 percent to Democrats. The only group favoring Democrats, in fact, were contributors giving more than $100,000.
"The findings illustrate the Republicans' strong advantage over Democrats in the current system," the center concluded. That's for sure. With the McCain-Feingold law capping total contributions at $95,000 per person, the Democrats are plain out of luck.
The analysis also found an extension of the gender gap into political contributions. Women who listed an employer or income-generating profession gave 61 percent of their political money to Democrats, while women who declared themselves "homemakers" or named an occupation that doesn't produce income gave 55 percent of their political contributions to Republicans. Overall, women gave 53 percent of donations to Democrats, and men gave 54 percent to Republicans.
One wild card: Because women gave 26 percent of "hard money" -- the contributions made directly to candidates that had always been regulated -- but only 15 percent of the now-restricted soft money, wealthy couples may partly offset the new soft money restrictions by having women increase their hard-money contributions.
Less surprising was the finding that 94 percent of congressional candidates who outspent their opponents won their races.
The study also found that only one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans gave $1,000 or more. Total spending in the 2002 cycle by candidates, parties and interest groups was $2.2 billion, down from the $2.9 billion spent in 2000 but significantly more than the $1.7 billion spent in the 1998 midterm election.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company