Party Strategists Discuss Campaign Fundraising

LAURA SCHWARTZ: Well, I think there's a trend of Republicans right now, it -- that the money, that they're having difficulty raising. And Cheri raises a good point, Fred Thompson just got into the race. There's a lot of folks out there on the fence on the Republican side. A lot of the Bush Pioneers and Rangers, his top fundraisers in his two presidential campaigns, haven't committed money yet. I think you're going to see a great gain on the Republican side from money, comparatively, in their upcoming fourth quarter, than they have the rest of the year.

But, as for those, overall, over at the Democratic side, there's great momentum. People were enthusiastic among the Democratic Party and Independents after the big win in the 2006 midterm elections.

And when you look at the recent history, like you mentioned, Judy, John Kerry, in 2003, his first three first three quarters, combined, was $17 million. In this one quarter, Hillary Clinton raised $27 million. So, it shows, I believe, a greater momentum, an enthusiasm, a real need for change that a lot of the Democrats are roused about, and they're getting other people to come onboard and give money, that have never given before. But that history also lends John Edwards and Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, other Democrats in the field, to say, "Hey, let's look at recent history." In 2003 at this time, John Kerry was behind Howard Dean, and he got the nomination in Iowa; Howard Dean fizzled out. So, I think those second-tier candidates on the Democratic side are looking to history and saying, "Hey, this could reverse itself again. We still have a chance." And the frontrunners on the Democratic side are saying, "This shows my momentum, that I'm outraising the Democrats from 2003."

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me -- let me come back to Cheri on this question, because I was looking at these numbers. Hillary Clinton has raised, overall, $80 million, almost; Obama, almost $80 million; and Rudy Giuliani, who, you know, may be considered the frontrunner -- you know, Mitt Romney is certainly doing well in the early primary states -- they've each raised only about half of what -- $45 -- I guess $44 or $45 million -- of what Clinton and Obama [have] ... are Republicans worried about this? [W]hat does that say about this election and this electorate, if anything?

CHERI JACOBUS: I think that, again, it shows that Republicans are just having a different dynamic in a different place right now in our primary. Whoever comes out of this with the nomination -- and there's -- I think they'd be able to match the Democrat, dollar for dollar.

But, I think, on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has been, kind of, running for a long time, and people have known that, so her fundraising operation has been solid, almost as if she were an incumbent, because of that Clinton name. Obama bursts on the scene, and he is exciting and different, and has been able to draw in a lot of new people, much in the same way, I think, that Howard Dean did when he ran for President. I don't really think that a whole lot of folks consider Edwards -- he might be top three, but I think people consider him pretty far behind these other two. And now that people are talking about the Hillary Clinton nomination as inevitable, these others are merely running for Vice President. I mean, to be honest, I think that's what most people consider it -- this to be.

Republican side, we're still -- the race is still shaping up. Again, we mentioned, Thompson just got in the race. Ron Paul has had an absolutely surprising showing, which adds a new dynamic. There is a lot of buzz about Huckabee, because of his strong performances in the debate. So, it's still very much in play in the -- on the Republican side, no clear -- we have a frontrunner, but no one clearly has the nomination yet. So, the reason these fundraising numbers are a little bit more spread out is because people are still undecided. We still have a vigorous debate going on within the Republican Party. In some ways, it's just beginning. And I think you'll see these numbers change quite drastically as we get closer to choosing our nominee.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. I want to run through some of these wonderful questions we've been getting from our visitors to the Web site. And this question -- and just bore in a little bit more on these numbers -- this question comes from Jim S., in Santa Clara, Calif. He says, "What are your thoughts on the differences between those candidates who get small donations from a wide audience of donors -- for example, $100 from, you know, a million donors -- versus -- or many thousands -- versus the candidate who gets fewer donations, but larger amounts?" What does -- what does that say to you, if anything?

Laura?

LAURA SCHWARTZ: Well, Jim raises a really good point. You look at a candidate like Barack Obama -- Barack Obama has amassed about 350,000 donors. That's a lot of new donors to the campaign; 93,000 were new this third quarter. And these are folks that, perhaps, haven't been involved in the process before. These are lower-dollar donors, so that means these are folks that are giving $5, $10, $15, $20, $200 at a time. They're not maxing out with the $2300 contribute -- contribution, which is the maximum to an individual candidate that a donor can give. So, it shows that somebody like Barack Obama is getting more people involved that haven't been before, and they're willing to do that with just a small donation, to start out with. The big hurdle will be whether or not that small donation generates a vote, five votes, or ten votes; whereas, somebody that does give $2300 to a campaign, that can buy a lot more literature and a lot more advertising.

CHERI JACOBUS: For a good fundraiser to really make their mark it is what they do early on and then what the communications director can do with that information.

[Laughter.]

JUDY WOODRUFF: But I think -- I think we know that doesn't happen. But help us understand those two things.

LAURA SCHWARTZ: No. And yet, still a good idea, Randy, when you look at all this money out there, thinking, "What if we put this to actual policy?" But it does go to policy. This really is an investment in our future, when you invest in a candidate that you believe promotes your issues, issues that they have a direction on that you feel is going to improve your everyday life. Money really is making it -- the campaign inevitable for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the Democratic side. I don't think it's a done deal yet, although there's a lot of speculation that Hillary has it sown up. When you look at the state-by-state polls, it's much more closer than it is nationally. But when you've got that much money, it means you can travel to go see people face to face. It means that you can micro-target, so you send literature out to every population of your demographic in your Democratic Party, and you know what their trigger point is, so that you can -- you can really put that information to them and tell them why you're the best candidate. You're able to have the staff to make the policy. You're able to have the staff to get that policy out over the airwaves. So, money really does drive it. That's why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in such standings, not just in the dollar amounts, but in the polling situations in the States, and nationally.

CHERI JACOBUS: Well, I would just have to add to that, though, if you are running for President, and you do not get the nomination, and you've got millions left over at the end of the process, you've really done something wrong. And the people that have written you checks are probably going to be a little bit angry and perturbed with you that you haven't spent the money trying to win the nomination. So, the -- really, the goal is -- when you're running for any office -- is to spend that money so that you can win.

We're in a 50-50 nation now, so I don't expect that any presidential -- any nominee is going to have a whole lot of money left over, because, in the end game, the money that you spend, the big dollars that you spend, is to turn out and garner, really, a small sliver of the vote --

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. I've got --

CHERI JACOBUS: -- those people that make their decisions in the last -- in the final days of a campaign.

JUDY WOODRUFF: We have several more really terrific questions. I want to get to -- get to a couple of those.

This one -- I'm going to come back to you, Cheri, for this one -- this is Nate Lambert, from Tallahassee, Fla. He says, "How is it that his -- that a candidate who is consistently ahead in at least three of the first five States to vote, and has raised more funds than any other Republican candidate, is not getting more national press coverage?" He says, "Mitt Romney. How is it that Rudy Giuliani is constantly being propped up as the frontrunner on the Republican side, when he only occasionally is polled as leading in these important first states?" How would you answer Nate Lambert?

CHERI JACOBUS: First of all, I don't think that Rudy Giuliani is being propped up. The numbers are real, the polling is real. You know, his strategy is different than Mitt Romney's. At this stage, remember, we are in a primary situation, we're not in a general election. The strategy of these two candidates, of their campaigns, are very, very different. It was the strategy for Mitt Romney to go in and spend a lot of time and a lot of money in Iowa, for example, and to work the press there. It is the strategy of Rudy Giuliani to go with his strengths, and that is to get on the national stage and work that angle of things.

So, I think the -- what we're seeing is really a reflection of the strategy of the two different candidates. If Rudy Giuliani -- if his -- Rudy Giuliani's strategists understand that he does better with a broad-brush nationally now that then eventually will help him in the primaries, then that's the way they're going to go. Mitt Romney obviously believes that his strengths lie in being more on the ground in very key states, rather than worrying about the national numbers at this point.

LAURA SCHWARTZ: Well, he raises a very good point. It's almost like we're in attention deficit disorder among the primary candidates, at times, in an age of a 24-7 news cycle, with all the different messages. But, really, it comes down to having enough money to get your message out there, and that's why you're seeing a frontloading of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, because they have the money, and they're out there. Public financing may solve part of that, but, once you introduce public financing, now you're using taxpayer dollars for an entire system.

So, how do you mandate that, "Okay, that person's worthy enough to get these matching funds, or get these -- you know, get funds, to begin with"? Right now, they're only eligible for that, partway into the process, like, you know, a few folks are going to take advantage of this quarter -- or this primary season. But it's really interesting to say, "If we have public financing, then are we going to say how many staff can travel with the candidates as they go around the country? You know, is there a limit to how much food they can eat behind the scenes? We don't want taxpayers funding all of that." So, how do we find a better system? Honestly, I think that's years away. I don't see it as achievable in this day and age, especially when you look at this primary calendar; whereby, February 5th, at least 22 states, some among the most expensive media markets in the country, are going to have their primary elections, and it takes a lot of money to get on those airwaves. Unfortunately, again, it comes down to the money to run a campaign.