Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Folks not donating money to Democrats like in the past?


CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16343
Date:
Folks not donating money to Democrats like in the past?


Democrats jarred by drop in fundraising
Complacency and absence of big donors cited as key factors
Sept . 25, 2009

WASHINGTON - Democratic political committees have seen a decline in their fundraising fortunes this year, a result of complacency among their rank-and-file donors and a de facto boycott by many of their wealthiest givers, who have been put off by the party's harsh rhetoric about big business.

The trend is a marked reversal from recent history, in which Democrats have erased the GOP's long-standing fundraising advantage. In the first six months of 2009, Democratic campaign committees' receipts have dropped compared with the same period two years earlier.

The vast majority of those declines were accounted for by the absence of large donors who, strategists say, have shut their checkbooks in part because Democrats have heightened their attacks on the conduct of major financial firms and set their sights on rewriting the laws that regulate their behavior.

As the battle over President Obama's effort to overhaul the health-care system2.gif reached a fever pitch this summer, the three national Republican committees combined to bring in $1.7 million more than their Democratic counterparts in August. The pair of Democratic committees tasked with raising money for House and Senate candidates -- and doing so at a time when the party holds its strongest position on Capitol Hill in a generation -- have watched their receipts plummet by a combined 20 percent with little more than a year to go before the November 2010 midterm elections.

Large-scale defeats in the midterms could be a crippling blow to the ambitious agenda mapped out by Obama's top advisers, particularly if they happen in the Senate, where Democrats caucus with a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority. The party will have to work furiously to defend at least six Senate seats and as many as 40 in the House2.gif, including many snatched from Republicans.

"If they take them back, this is the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do," Vice President Biden said Monday at a fundraiser for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), whose district was held by a Republican for more than two decades before her 2006 victory.

Sense of complacency
Democrats said a struggling economy is only partly to blame for the poor fundraising performance and acknowledged a more perilous problem: satisfaction among activists that the party now holds the White House, 60 votes in the Senate and 60 percent of the House.

"There was a little sense of complacency that set in despite our best efforts to warn people," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "We made it very clear: Beware."

Democrats had watched the party's campaign committees rake in increasing amounts of money throughout this decade, culminating in the 2007-2008 election cycle, when their congressional committees raised a combined $125 million more than their GOP counterparts. They used that financial edge to boost their candidates with seven- and sometimes eight-figure advertising budgets, often using that money to run negative ads that candidates shy away from airing.

Now there are signs that such advantages may not be there next year.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was considered the party's best-run organization as it oversaw pickups of 14 Republican seats in 2006 and 2008. But through August, the DSCC had raised just $27.5 million, a drop of more than 25 percent, or $9.2 million, from the same point two years ago. While donations from special interest political action committees have increased, individual donors are disappearing at a rate that has alarmed party leaders: The DSCC's contributions from individuals was $18.5 million through August, a drop of $12.6 million, or nearly 40 percent, from two years earlier, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

A midyear analysis by the FEC showed that the DSCC declines at that stage had come entirely from individuals who gave $10,000 or more, a small slice of overall contributors but a group that traditionally provides about half the committee's fundraising total. Through June, those individual donors' contributions had declined by more than 50 percent from 2007. The committee is running 12 percent behind its 2005 pace among large donors.

Orin Kramer, the head of a private investment management company in New Jersey, said there has been a mutual belief among those collecting checks and those writing them that now is the time for deep-pocketed people involved in business and finance to steer clear of the political arena. "If there's been a point in time since Teddy Roosevelt when an administration cannot afford to be perceived as being manipulated by the financial community, it's now. There's an understandable sensitivity, because it's critical to avoid any sense that Wall Street has been empowered," said Kramer, a longtime fundraiser for Senate Democrats and one of Obama's earliest financial backers.

Big business rhetoric blamed
Other Democrats and their aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal party strategy, said that rhetoric toward big business has grown so antagonistic that it has become increasingly difficult to raise money on Wall Street, particularly after the controversy about bonuses and executive compensation. The DSCC has also established a rule that forbids accepting donations from the handful of financial firms that received money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the $700 billion bailout effort approved last fall, and have not yet repaid the government.

Democrats continue to collect more from big donors than Republicans do, with their trio of national committees almost tripling the amount taken in by the GOP committees in first half of the year, according to the FEC. But Republicans are benefiting from much more energized small-dollar contributors.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which has been pitching itself to conservative donors as the only check against Obama's agenda, has stayed roughly even with the DSCC in overall receipts, and its cash flow is 30 percent ahead of its 2007 level.

Democrats remain optimistic that they will have the resources needed to wage a forceful campaign next fall, particularly in most of the six seats that are being vacated by retiring GOP senators.

"The further we get into the cycle, the clearer it becomes that we will have more than enough funds to run competitive campaigns in each of our targeted races," said Eric Schultz, a DSCC spokesman. "In fact, every day that Republicans wash their hands of any responsibility to deal with the economy and the health-care crisis, our supporters grow more and more motivated to help us."

2008 bonanza seen as an anomaly
Some Democrats characterized the fundraising bonanza they experienced during the 2008 election cycle as an anomaly, saying Obama's campaign -- which shattered records by raising more than $700 million -- brought so many new donors to the party fold that some contributors have understandably drifted away without the charismatic candidate at the top of the ticket in 2010. They also said a busy fall fundraising season for the president and vice president began in earnest last week with Obama's trip to Philadelphia, which raised $2.5 million split between Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and the DSCC, and Biden's fundraising work for House members.

However, the need for cash is more urgent than it has been in recent cycles, when Democrats had few vulnerable senators facing reelection. In 2010, the DSCC must defend seats in some of the nation's most expensive media markets -- New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Denver and Las Vegas -- before it can even think of going after GOP-held seats.

House Democrats have seen donations to the DCCC drop 16 percent, with individual contributions more than 25 percent off their 2007 pace. But party leaders saw a 50 percent increase in small-dollar donations in August, after what they hope was a wake-up call to liberals who watched endless cable news footage of conservative protesters dominating town hall meetings.

"Our supporters around the country realized they have a fight on their hands," Van Hollen said. "People are rallying."

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16343
Date:

I guess this is how they plan to fill the void,

WASHINGTON The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday that four New Jersey congressmen and its own former commissioner unduly influenced the process that led to its decision last year to approve a patch for injured knees, an approval it is now revisiting.


The agencys scientific reviewers repeatedly and unanimously over many years decided that the device, known as Menaflex and manufactured by ReGen Biologics Inc., was unsafe because the device often failed, forcing patients to get another operation.

But after receiving what an F.D.A. report described as extreme, unusual and persistent pressure from four Democrats from New Jersey Senators Robert Menendez and Frank R. Lautenberg and Representatives Frank Pallone Jr. and Steven R. Rothman agency managers overruled the scientists and approved the device for sale in December.

All four legislators made their inquiries within a few months of receiving significant campaign contributions from ReGen, which is based in New Jersey, but all said they had acted appropriately and were not influenced by the money. Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, the former drug agencys commissioner, said he had acted properly.

The agency has never before publicly questioned the process behind one of its approvals, never admitted that a regulatory decision was influenced by politics, and never accused a former commissioner of questionable conduct.

The message here is that there were problems with the integrity of F.D.A.s decision-making process that have solutions, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the agencys principal deputy commissioner, said in a conference call with reporters.

Dr. Sharfstein said that patients in the United States who had already received the $3,000 device should wait for the agencys review of the devices approval and urged them not to panic.

Gerald E. Bisbee Jr., chairman and chief executive of ReGen, said that Menaflex was safe and described as inaccurate many of the agencys characterizations of the devices approval. Thirty patients in the United States and nearly 3,000 in Europe have received the device, and ReGen has trained up to 140 surgeons in the United States to use it. He defended the companys appeal to lawmakers.

We did what people do all the time in Washington: we went to our congressmen, we went to our senators, Mr. Bisbee said.

Menaflex is a C-shaped pad used to repair a torn or damaged meniscus, the cushion between knee bones. A clinical trial of the device failed to show that it worked any better than routine surgery.

The report, written by top agency officials, said that Dr. von Eschenbach, who resigned as F.D.A. commissioner in January, became as a result of political pressure personally engaged in the details of a process usually coordinated by scientific staff. One agency manager concluded that Dr. von Eschenbach was demanding not only an expedited process but also an outcome in favor of ReGen, the report stated.

Congressional interest in the ReGen matter and the unusual responsiveness of the commissioner to that interest initiated a chaotic new phase in the agencys handling of the companys application, the report said.

In an interview Thursday, Dr. von Eschenbach defended his actions.

My responsibility as that process was coming to a close was to make sure that it was continued in an orderly and appropriate fashion, and thats what I believe I did, he said.

The F.D.A.s report said that its Office of Legislation began receiving calls from members of Congress in December 2007 complaining about its review of the device, and the offices director described the pressure from the Hill as the most extreme he had seen.

All four members of Congress denied that ReGens political contributions had played any role in their efforts on its behalf with the F.D.A. and said they were merely doing their jobs by trying to help a constituent company.

The four representatives received a total of $26,000 from three ReGen executives beginning in October 2007, according to OpenSecrets.org. The donations began with $2,000 to a political action committee controlled by Mr. Menendez, the New Millennium PAC, on Oct. 28, 2007. Mr. Menendez received another $7,100 for his campaign account in March 2008.

Afshin Mohamadi, a spokesman for Mr. Menendez, said the senators contact with the F.D.A. was to help to ensure that the agency was communicating clearly with the company and to help ensure a fair process.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/health/policy/25knee.html?_r=2&th&emc=th

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16343
Date:

Wut?



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Status: Offline
Posts: 4788
Date:

I won't donate to either party.

__________________
Drive it like you stole it
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard