2 of 6

Yes

Write now Article Tools

There was a time when campaign fundraising could not indicate voter support, but those times have passed as, like other aspects of American life, campaign contributions have become more egalitarian. Today, when viewed through the proper spectra, campaign funds can indicate critical insight about a candidate's support within particular sectors of his constituency.

First, an evaluation of donor numbers can establish popularity. Howard Dean and Joe Trippi first popularized this aspect of campaigning in 2004 when they vigorously utilized new technology to go after numbers of donors. They ignited a national firestorm that likely would have continued unabated to the party nomination had Dean made fewer personal blunders along the way. Now, Senator Barack Obama is taking the lead, announcing that he has some 250,000 donors offering him over $32 million in the second quarter of 2007 alone. The 250,000 figure is far more important than the $32 million in that it shows Senator Obama to have critical grassroots support, especially in the early primary and caucus states where candidates canvas most vigorously for support. While Senator Obama continues to lack the luster of the 2004 Democratic National Convention in the early debates, he obviously controls a sizeable number of party activists.

The monetary values are significant as well in that they also outline overall support within the establishment-the basis for the old system. Especially during the primary cycle, contributors are often party activists, likely to vote and likely to influence the votes of others. Even if these funds come from the party "establishment," that establishment still carries considerable weight, especially in states where groups such as labor unions are prominent. On both political sides, funds are critical indicators of support. For instance, campaign contributions alone bolted Mitt Romney to national prominence, as he was thought an outsider at best prior to his robust figures. These contributions have turned into supporters, as his deep funds have allowed him to purchase ads on television in key early primary states, catapulting him from third-place or fourth-place to first in some polls held in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Finally, fundraising has proven of late to be generally consistent with voter trends. At the height of the terrorism hysteria and the frenzy of the 2004 race, Republican candidates were earning more money than ever before. Now, Democrats are gaining more contributions as public discontent rises and Democrats make gains in Congress. Additionally, Democratic Presidential candidates are generally out-raising their GOP counterparts, reinforcing polling data showing the Democratic voters are more satisfied with their slate of candidates than Republicans.

Thus, while financing can never be the end-all indicator of support, these contributions cannot be downplayed. Those contributions will finance the jet fuel that allows candidates to get on the ground and present their ideas to swing voters. Contributions will finance the ads which define the issues surrounding the elections, and contributions indicate voters so dedicated to a candidate that they are likely to bring votes to the table. There is no coincidence that the outcome of most races in the near future will rise and fall with the depth of a candidate's pockets.

Learn more about this author, Scott Gray.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Is campaign fund-raising an indication of voter support??
We want to hear your view. Write now!