Joint Fundraising Committees, Explained

At National Journal, Reid Wilson reports:

Between the beginning of 2011 and August 30, the last date for which publicly-filed records are available, Obama for America has raised $337 million. The Democratic National Committee raised $111 million. The Obama Victory Fund, a joint account that collects big checks and distributes money to other committees, raised $291 million. And the Swing State Victory Fund, another joint account, has raised $3 million (Those are the total receipts reported before distributions from other committees, so we're not double-counting any money).

Over the weekend, the Obama campaign announced it had raised $181 million in the month of September across that Byzantine structure of committees and organizations. All told, Obama's campaign and the committees it controls have raised $923 million. If they raise just half as much in October as they did in September, Obama's campaign will indeed become the first billion-dollar campaign in history.

Given the pace at which Obama is fundraising -- he's in California today, the second part of a two-day Golden State fundraising swing -- a ten-figure campaign is all but guaranteed.

Individuals can give up to $75,800 to a victory fund, aka joint fundraising committee. How does this figure square with contribution limits?  As FEC explains, there is an aggregate limit of contributions to PACs and parties of $70,800. There is a contribution limit of $2,500 to candidates; however, the primary campaign and the general election campaign count separately, so $2500 can go to the Romney (or Obama) primary account and $2500 to the Romney (or Obama) general election account, 

In other words $70,800 + $2500 + $2500 = $75,800. 

And everything goes double for married couples! 

Romney Victory explains it this way:

Contributions to Romney Victory, Inc. (“RV”) are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. RV is a joint fundraising committee composed of Romney for President, Inc. (“RFP”), the Republican National Committee (“RNC”), the official Republican Parties in four states (the Idaho Republican Party, the Massachusetts Republican Party, the Oklahoma Leadership Council, and the Vermont Republican Federal Election Committee), the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the National Republican Congressional Committee. Proceeds shall be allocated by the following formula:

Individuals and non-multicandidate PACs - The first $2,500 will go to RFP’s general account. Prior to August 31, 2012, the next $2,500 will go to RFP’s primary account. Beginning on August 31, 2012, should Romney for President have primary debt, that next $2,500 will go to RFP’s primary debt retirement account. The next $30,800 will go to the RNC. The remaining amount will be split evenly among the federal accounts of the Republican Parties of Idaho, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Vermont, up to a maximum of $10,000 per committee.

Multicandidate PACs - The first $5,000 will go to RFP’s general account. Prior to August 31, 2012, the next $5,000 will go to RFP’s primary account. Beginning on August 31, 2012, should Romney for President have primary debt, that next $5,000 will go to RFP’s primary debt retirement account. The next $15,000 will go to the RNC. The remaining amount will be split evenly among the federal accounts of the Republican Parties of Idaho, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Vermont, up to a maximum of $5,000 per committee.

Notwithstanding this allocation formula, a contributor may designate a contribution for a specific participant or participants. In addition, the allocation formula may change if any contribution would exceed applicable contribution limits. Contributions from corporations, labor unions, federal contractors, and foreign nationals are prohibited. Federal law requires us to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation, and name of employer of each contributor whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year (RNC and state parties) or election cycle (RFP).

The Obama version:

We are asking for a donation of up to $75,800 from individuals per election to Obama Victory Fund 2012. We are not asking for, and will not accept in connection with this solicitation, donations in any amount from registered federal lobbyists, registered foreign agents, federal political action committees, or minors under the age of 16. Contributions in any amount from corporations, labor organizations, national banks, federal contractors, and foreign nationals are prohibited. To enter by contributing money to Obama Victory Fund 2012, complete and submit the contribution form at https://donate.barackobama.com/dinner-with-barack-ovf or other web page specifically identified by Sponsor during the Promotion Period. No minimum contribution is necessary to enter. Entering via the contribution method described in this paragraph (c) will not increase your chances of winning the prize. The first $5,000 of a contribution to Obama Victory Fund 2012 will be allocated to Obama for America (with the first $2,500 designated for the primary election, and the next $2,500 for the general election). The next $30,800 of a contribution will be allocated to the Democratic National Committee. Any additional amounts from a contributor will be divided among the State Democratic Party Committees as follows, up to $10,000 per committee and subject to the biennial aggregate limits: FL (17%); OH (16%); PA (13%); CO (11%); NC (11%); VA (11%); NV (6%); WI (6%); IA (5%); and NH (4%). A contributor may designate his or her contribution for a particular participant. The allocation formula above may change if following it would result in an excessive contribution. Contributions will be used in connection with a Federal election.

Latest Crossroads GPS Senate Ads

Reprising the optometric ad it ran against House candidate Julian Schreibman in New York, GPS goes after  Sherrod Brown in Ohio:

 

Another "swipe" at Tester in Montana:


A "rubber stamp" attack on Heitkamp in North Dakota:


In Virginia, a link between Tim Kaine and defense cuts:


In Wisconsin, an attack on Tammy Baldwin's healthcare stand:

Outside Money and House Races

Roll Call reports:

While Crossroads has reserved millions across the country in television time for presidential and Senate races, House operatives do not see any ad time from the group in their targeted races.

A spokesman said the groups have together spent $1.5 million on House races since Jan. 1, 2012, and there is big spending yet to come. “Crossroads is looking to spend tens of millions through a variety of platforms — TV ads, phone calls, direct mail, research, polling — to protect the majority in the U.S. House and promote a conservative agenda,” spokesman Nate Hodson said in a statement. He noted that Rove isn’t a spokesman for the group.
...
“One of the big stories of this election in the House is that the Democratic outside groups have been more aggressive and spent more money on control of the House than business and Republican groups have,” top Republican strategist Brad Todd said.

Part of the trouble for Republicans and their allies is that outside dollars become less effective as each day passes. The competition in the top broadcast markets drives up the price to air advertisements — especially compared with TV time reserved early:

• In Sacramento, Calif., home to four competitive House races, outside groups pay about $1,100 per gross rating point — about $1 million to air a week of ads at saturation levels. In April, the cost was about $510 per point.
• In Las Vegas, outside groups pay about $600 per point. That’s twice the cost per point in April.
• On Boston’s Interconnect cable market, outside groups pay $1,800 per point to advertise in any of three nearby House races. Earlier this year, the cost was $700 per point.
• In smaller markets, such as Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Wausau, Wis., outside groups pay $125 to $165 per point. That’s three times the rate candidates receive.

But Politico reports that the cavalry is on the way:

Republicans are poised to flex their financial muscle in the final month leading up to the election, dumping an avalanche of cash into congressional races in an attempt to protect the House GOP majority.

POLITICO has learned that two leading Republican groups, American Action Network and the Congressional Leadership Fund, are teaming up to spend nearly $13.5 million in House battles across the country.

The investment has the potential to drastically alter a financial playing field that has been mostly even between the two parties. Between the beginning of July and the end of September, Republican groups held a $36 million to $31 million spending advantage over their Democratic counterparts — a narrow GOP edge that left some Republican officials, who expected to have the upper hand in the money game, surprised and anxious.

American Crossroads Libya Ad

The Libya attack initially was a problem for Mitt Romney.  Now, news reports have case an unfavorable light on the administration's actions.  Once again, American Crossroads takes note:

More on the Romney Bounce

Romney's bounce may or may not be short-lived, but it's there. The Pew Research Center reports:

Mitt Romney no longer trails Barack Obama in the Pew Research Center’s presidential election polling. By about three-to-one, voters say Romney did a better job than Obama in the Oct. 3 debate, and the Republican is now better regarded on most personal dimensions and on most issues than he was in September. Romney is seen as the candidate who has new ideas and is viewed as better able than Obama to improve the jobs situation and reduce the budget deficit.

Fully 66% of registered voters say Romney did the better job in last Wednesday’s debate, compared with just 20% who say Obama did better. A majority (64%) of voters who watched the debate describe it as mostly informative; just 26% say it was mostly confusing.

In turn, Romney has drawn even with Obama in the presidential race among registered voters (46% to 46%) after trailing by nine points (42% to 51%) in September. Among likely voters, Romney holds a slight 49% to 45% edge over Obama. He trailed by eight points among likely voters last month.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Oct. 4-7 among 1,511 adults, including 1,201 registered voters (1,112 likely voters), finds that 67% of Romney’s backers support him strongly, up from 56% last month. For the first time in the campaign, Romney draws as much strong support as does Obama.

Politico reports:

A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Tracking Poll of likely voters shows Obama ahead of Mitt Romney 49 percent to 48 percent nationally, a statistical tie and a percentage point closer than a week ago.

The head-to-head numbers have held remarkably steady through the past three weeks, but there’s been a notable shift of intensity from the Democrats to the Republicans since the party conventions over a month ago. Most of the poll’s calls were made before Romney’s strong performance at the first presidential debate in Denver.

Only 73 percent who support Obama say they are “extremely likely” to vote, compared to 86 percent who back Romney. Likewise, 84 percent of Republicans say they are extremely likely to vote, compared to 76 percent of Democrats.

Among those extremely likely to vote, Romney actually leads Obama 52 percent to 46 percent. That’s up from a 2-point lead last week. Obama led 50 percent to 47 percent among this group three weeks ago.

Romney's Debate Bounce

Gallup reports:

Registered voters' preferences for president are evenly split in the first three days of Gallup tracking since last Wednesday's presidential debate. In the three days prior to the debate, Barack Obama had a five-percentage-point edge among registered voters.

Gallup typically reports voter presidential preferences in seven-day rolling averages; the latest such average as of Saturday interviewing shows Obama with an average three-point edge, 49% to 46%, among registered voters. This Sept. 30-Oct. 6 field period includes three days before the Oct. 3 debate, the night of the debate itself, and three days after the debate.

Even on this basis, the race has become somewhat more competitive compared with before the first debate. Obama held four- to six-point leads in Gallup's seven-day tracking results in the eight days prior to the Oct. 3 debate.
...
An Oct. 4-5 Gallup poll finds roughly two in three Americans reporting that they watched the Oct. 3 debate, similar to what Gallup measured for each of the three 2008 presidential debates. Those who viewed the debate overwhelmingly believe Romney did a better job than Obama, 72% to 20%. Republicans were nearly unanimous in judging Romney the winner. But even Democrats rated Romney as doing a better job than Obama, 49% to 39%.

...

Gallup has assessed opinion on who did better in most past presidential debates; some of these polls were conducted the night of the debate with pre-recruited samples of debate watchers immediately after it concluded, and some were conducted with more general samples of Americans in the days that followed the debate. Across all of the various debate-reaction polls Gallup has conducted, Romney's 52-point win is the largest Gallup has measured. The prior largest margin was 42 points for Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in the 1992 town hall debate.

Mark Blumenthal writes at The Huffington Post:

Most of the polls conducted by other organizations since Wednesday's debate have shown a similar shift in Romney's direction. The HuffPost Pollster tracking model, which combines national and statewide survey data, currently gives Obama just a one and a half percentage point edge nationwide (47.6 percent to 46.0 percent as of this hour, although the estimate will update as new polls become available).

Mail Ballot Fraud and Granny Farming

Previous posts have looked at the rise of convenience voting. The New York Times reports on a big problem with mail ballots:

There is a bipartisan consensus that voting by mail, whatever its impact, is more easily abused than other forms. In a 2005 report signed by President Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III, who served as secretary of state under the first President George Bush, the Commission on Federal Election Reform concluded, “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

On the most basic level, absentee voting replaces the oversight that exists at polling places with something akin to an honor system.

“Absentee voting is to voting in person,” Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has written, “as a take-home exam is to a proctored one.”

Election administrators have a shorthand name for a central weakness of voting by mail. They call it granny farming.

“The problem,” said Murray A. Greenberg, a former county attorney in Miami, “is really with the collection of absentee ballots at the senior citizen centers.” In Florida, people affiliated with political campaigns “help people vote absentee,” he said. “And help is in quotation marks.”

Voters in nursing homes can be subjected to subtle pressure, outright intimidation or fraud. The secrecy of their voting is easily compromised. And their ballots can be intercepted both coming and going.