The Red Shift

AP reports:

Preferences for control of Congress are tight, but Republicans have gained on Democrats since January. Thirty-six percent in last month's poll said they would rather see the Democrats in charge of Congress and 37 percent chose Republicans.

Democrats held a narrow advantage on that question in January, when 39 percent favored the Democrats and 32 percent the Republicans.

The shift stems largely from a change among those most interested in politics.

In the new poll, registered voters who are most strongly interested in politics favored the Republicans by 14 percentage points, 51 percent to 37 percent. In January, this group was about evenly split, with 42 percent preferring Democrats and 45 percent the Republicans.
That's not the only positive sign in the poll for the Republicans.

Favorable views of the GOP have improved, with 38 percent overall now saying they hold a favorable impression of the Party. Republicans' positive view of their own party has increased from 57 percent in January to 72 percent now.

Even impressions of the tea party movement have shifted more positive in recent months. GOP favorability still lags behind that of the Democrats, however, with 43 percent holding a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

Outsiders, Insiders, and the Tea Party

At The Washington Examiner, David Drucker notes how Tea Party outsiders morph into insiders:

In the four years since the Supreme Court struck down fundraising regulations that effectively gave the Democratic and Republican parties a monopoly on large-scale political activity, a collection of Tea Party-affiliated organizations has arisen in Washington that competes with the GOP for campaign contributors, money and influence -- and over what legislation to push and which candidates to nominate.

The groups, including the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and the Senate Conservatives Fund, have moved aggressively to kill legislation they oppose and oust incumbent Republicans they deem insufficiently conservative.

Like the national Republican Party, which they deride as the “GOP Establishment,” they have become an establishment of their own, a confederation of well-financed Tea Party groups that support a web of sister organizations and employ a legion of political professionals who live and work inside the Beltway. Having a leadership class in Washington is an awkward contradiction for a once-decentralized movement that represented the grassroots of middle America against the entrenched interests of a GOP elite mainly based in Washington.

Jon Fleischman, a conservative activist in Orange County, Calif., and persistent critic of the national Republican Establishment, said some — though not all — of the conservative groups in Washington suffer from the same problems as the GOP. To his mind, they are headquartered in the capital, driven by a few people at the top, promote whatever policy agenda suits them and fail to take the time to understand what the grassroots want from government.

“There are groups that I think started with good intentions that have gone native,” Fleischman said. “I have a concern that there are organizations in D.C. today that used to be the outside groups and now they’re the inside groups. I worry that others could follow that path, and that’s why I stay vigilant."

Braley's Bad Buzz

From Buzzfeed:

Bruce Braley is a Democratic congressman and candidate for Senate in Iowa.
He recently called the state’s Republican senator Chuck Grassley a “farmer” with no law degree.
...
Then Braley sent out a press release touting his farmer credentials and the Des Moines Register found that it misspelled several basic farming terms like “detasseling” and “baling.”
Via desmoinesregister.com

A photo he posted to Facebook is actually a farm in England, NOT Iowa.


TripAdvisor lists the farm as a fruit farm in England and an employee of the farm named Sonya confirmed to BuzzFeed the photo was of Cammas Fruit Farm.
...
It has since been taken down:

A Google search shows, however, it is the first result that comes up when you search for “Iowa farm.”

Another photo on Braley’s Facebook page, the display image for a poll on the minimum wage, featured a worker in Mazatlan, Mexico, NOT the U.S.

America Rising provides a final kick:

In an attempt to shake off the elitist moniker he’s been cultivating, Bruce Braley today told The Des Moines Register that being a lawyer was just like being a farmhand:

“One of my highest honors as a lawyer was being invited into the home of my clients to share a meal. To me, it was no different than putting up hay all day in Poweshiek County and sitting down to dinner at noon with the farm family I was helping that day.”

Good attempt, Bruce Braley, Esq, but client power-lunches are not the same as a family meal after a day on the farm.

Donors Dread Post-McCutcheon Fundraising Pitches

Bloomberg Business Week reports:

Within hours of a U.S. Supreme Court decision paving the way for a new gusher of political cash, Ben Barnes’s telephone starting ringing.

He and his daughters had already given the maximum amount for this year’s congressional elections to candidates and committees under federal law. After that donation cap was overturned in a 5-4 court ruling issued by the justices yesterday, Barnes found himself on the telephone with two Democratic members of Congress seeking more money.

“This will make the phone ring all that much more,” said the longtime Texas donor who expects to be kept busy managing new solicitations in the days ahead. “Tomorrow’s going to be like Saturday at the grocery store,” said Barnes.

In a case brought by Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican official, the court struck the $123,200 overall limit on campaign contributions, which critics said hamstrung the number of candidates and committees that donors could support. The majority justices said the limit violated the donors’ free speech rights. The court left in place restrictions on how much a donor can give to one entity; for example, no more than $5,200 total to a candidate for a cycle's primary and general elections.
...

Standing to gain the most from the change are the Democratic and Republican parties. Until now, aggregate limits were so tight that it prevented donors from giving the maximum amounts to all three of the national party committees: one for House candidates, another for Senate contenders and the third to finance operations at the national headquarters.

In addition, contributors may now give $10,000 per year to federal units attached to the 50 state parties. Those state parties can transfer money freely to one another, enabling those with hotly contested races to stockpile funds from less-competitive states.

The bottom line: On April 1, a donor could give no more than $74,600 to all of the political parties every two years. Today, party contributions can be as much as $1,194,400.

Politico reports that big donors worry that McCutcheon will subject them to endless hounding by party fundraisers:

“I’m horrified, planning to de-list my phone number and destroy my email address,” said Ken Kies, who, along with his wife, has bumped up against the federal political contribution limits.

“What I was really hoping for is a ban on lobbyists making contributions entirely.”

While it’s an open question how much new money will come in, it’s certain some will — and insiders are eager to make sure it greases the Washington economy.

“I’m poor again as a result,” joked Tony Podesta, a top lobbyist and major donor who is among the small number of K-Streeters who contribute nearly the maximum amount to candidates each election cycle. “The fundraising consultants are the only winner in today’s decision.”

Podesta said for those donors, the new rule “eliminates an excuse that people have to say I’m done for the cycle and I can’t do anymore, which means that people who do max out will end up giving more money than they used to to candidates.”

A Donnelly Disaster?

At Fox and Hounds, Tony Quinn speculates on what happens if Tim Donnelly emerges from the top-two primary as California Governor Jerry Brown's opponent:

First, it is important to consider that Donnelly has no money and will raise no money. He burst onto the scene as a member of the Minutemen, a band of vigilantes who ride around the border threatening immigrants. Donnelly is a self admitted gun fanatic in a state highly suspicious of unregulated firearms. And Jerry Brown starts with $20 million in the bank to which will be added millions more from Democratic activists and labor unions.

Those millions will flow once Democrats figure out, as they will, that a Donnelly candidacy gives them the chance for an historic landslide that will create a super-super majority in the legislature of more than 60 Assembly members and more than 30 Senators. This will open the door for long sought progressive causes such as much higher taxes on business and the wealthy, getting rid of Proposition 13, and extending Obamacare to undocumented aliens.

Criminal conduct by politicians will be a major issue this election cycle; the media will see to that. Having a Republican candidate for governor with criminal convictions will send the business establishment scurrying to Gov. Brown while suburban Republican voters flee the ticket in droves.

Elections are about turnout. An embarrassing Donnelly candidacy will keep Republicans home in November but with a GOP candidate out of the Minuteman anti-Latino posse, it can be assumed Latino turnout will be massive. People do vote their fears, and Latino turnout has been much higher the past two cycles than Republicans expected. Along with Asians, they are now straight ticket Democratic voters. So a good estimate is that Brown will win re-election with 75 to 80 percent of the two party vote in November.

And that is the key to a massive Democratic landslide. The lesson of recent elections that there are no longer swing voters in California, ticket splitters are as rare as Dodo birds. Republicans thought they had some winners in the legislative and congressional races for competitive seats in 2012, but Gov. Romney failed to carry these districts, and the GOP candidates below him on the ballot did little better than he did. The top of the ticker dragged down everyone underneath, and all the competitive Republicans lost.

McCutcheon and the Parties

Eliza Newlin Carney writes at Roll Call:

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus could hardly contain his glee during a conference call with reporters shortly after the Supreme Court ruled to strike the aggregate limit on campaign contributions.

“We are excited about the outcome of this case,” exulted Priebus, noting that the RNC bankrolled the constitutional challenge brought by businessman Shaun McCutcheon from beginning to end. In McCutcheon v. FEC, the court ruled 5-4 to overturn the overall limit on what an individual may donate collectively to parties, candidates and PACs in one election cycle, which was capped at $123,200 total.

The ruling “allows us to go to our donors and say: Look instead of being able to give to only nine Senate candidates, you can now give to the 14 that are most in play,” Priebus told reporters. “And you can give to the Senate committee, the congressional committee and the RNC, and you can max out to all three.”

Priebus wasn’t the only party official rejoicing in the wake of the high court’s Wednesday ruling. One Democratic campaign committee operative confided that he was “happy as a pig in shit.” While advocates of campaign finance limits on and off Capitol Hill assailed the ruling as an invitation to corruption and campaign finance abuses, party officials welcomed the decision.

The national party committees have good reason to celebrate, election lawyers say. Under the old rules, an individual contributor could give no more than $74,600 overall to the political party committees in a given election cycle. The “base” limit that caps the size of the contribution — $2,600 on what an individual may give to a candidate per election, for example — remains intact. But in the wake of the ruling, a big donor may give the maximum to all three party committees.

American Crossroads for Tillis in NC

Cameron Joseph reports at The Hill:

The GOP outside group American Crossroads is officially getting involved in North Carolina's GOP Senate primary, launching ads to back North Carolina Assembly Speaker Thom Tillis (R) over his Republican opponents

Tillis, the establishment favorite, is facing Tea Party favorite Dr. Greg Brannon (R), Rev. Mark Harris (R) and a number of other Republicans vying for the nomination to face Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.).

The ad campaign is Crossroads's second foray into a GOP primary in recent weeks, as it seeks to back candidates it views are more electable in general elections. Crossroads is also airing ads touting Alaska Senate candidate Dan Sullivan (R). The Hill reported last week that Crossroads was buying airtime in North Carolina to back Tillis.

Polls have been all over the place, but he hasn't topped the 40 percent needed to win the primary without a runoff in any of them.