what 1st quarter fund raising can tell us.
About a month ago, the 2008 Presidential candidates revealed their 1st quarter fund raising totals. We learned a few things about the election at hand next year. 1st off, it's expensive to run for President. Too expensive for anyone who doesn't hang with billionaires to even attempt. That fact alone bothers me. But the issue of campaign finance reforms won't be seriously debated in congress till 2009 if we're lucky. For this cycle, money is the beast that must be tamed if one wishes to run for President.
In a closer inspection of the candidates fundraising, however, reveals a few interesting tidbits. Not so much in the total amounts, but the sources of the funds.
Compare Barack Obama's fundraising with that of Mitt Romney. Both men exceeded expectations in the total amounts, which was widely reported. It was also reported that Obama's funds were the most diversely raised of all the candidates. He had a bigger amount of actual donors. His donors gave less per donor than anyone else's. Some speculate that this will allow Obama to get more from the same people down the road, which will be an advantage.
On the other hand, Romney's donors were few. And where did the ex- Mass. Governor's support come from? Was it from the state that elected him to the mansion? Nope. was it at least out of the northeast? Nope. Was it from the deep south, where the "ruby" is in the red of the states? Nope.
Mitt's donors primarily came from Utah, Idaho and a few other Mormon hotbeds. This reported by the Washington Post recently.
A lot of Romney's campaign touts the idea that we should put aside the majority of Americans religious differences with him when we consider giving our vote to him. He does this in the name of religious freedom, tolerence and a pledge to keep his personal religious beliefs out of policy.
And for the most part, he is right. We should, at least inherently, leave his religious affiations aside or at least move them way down the priority chart. That is, if the latter part of his stance, that his mormon bias won't play a role in policy, is true.
But how can that be to be trusted? If Mitt's donor base is primarily mormon, especially here, early on, won't he be somewhat beholden to that base which includes some radical ideologues. Whereas Obamas base is wide and diverse and allows him to represent a broader percentage of people, Romney will be beholden to these people who got him going, and surely will be giving more to support their brother in faith.
Mitt asks us not to judge him on a religious level, but I for one have a hard time with that in his case. This issue is actually more similar to the issue that was raised about John Edwards in 2004, where he got much support from his trial lawyer bretheren. But because Romney's fundraising base is a religious one, rather than a professional affiiation, people are hesitant to even mention it in fear of being accused of some sort of "anti religion" charge. And from the looks of it, that fear has been effective in allowing Romney to on one hand claim religious independence in his policy making decisions, and at at the same time draw his coffers up with the support of the people he is claiming independence from publicly.
The election probably won't come down to Obama vs Romney. But it's possible as both candidates are considered "1st tier" candidates, i.e.- serious contenders. If It were to come down to these 2, while many would be micro-analyzing a particular issue, or host of them, I would come back to this. I coud find common ground with either candidate, and in Romney's case, it wouldn't be hard as he has had a spectrum of positions on some issues over the years.
But I would rather have a President who represented a bigger group, like multitudes of common, middle class americans who gave a couple hundred, or a hundred or 25 bucks to a candidate rather than one that drew from an exclusive base of 2300 dollar donors from a sliver of american society, regardless if they are a religious group, a group of ambulance chasers or whomever. Something we haven't had in a long time.