Hypocrite Dems Boast About ‘Small Donations’ But Really Want the Big Checks

Sanders leads Democrats with $15.7 million in Q1; Trump raised nearly double that.

 1

Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris / IMAGE: Sen. Kamala Harris via Facebook

(Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times) In a Democratic primary where almost every candidate claims to be supported by small donors and to loathe the ills of big money in politics, campaign finance disclosure statements told a different story.

While Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders can boast that more than 80 percent of his hefty campaign account comes from donations of less than $200, other big-name candidates are nowhere close.

Among others in the Democratic field, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker only managed to collect about 16 percent of the $5 million he raised from such small donors. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand hovered at around the same ratio.

California Sen. Kamala Harris could claim just a third of the $12 million she raised came in increments of less than $200.

The reports were a reminder that despite their frequent rhetorical attacks on corporate interests and billionaire 1-percenters, the lifeblood for many Democrats’ campaigns remains big checks.

The disclosure statements also revealed big reasons for candidates to continue to tap big donors: President Donald Trump raised roughly $30 million in the first quarter—not a record sum for an incumbent, but a reminder that he’ll have huge resources to draw on in his re-election bid.

Trump also self-funded a part of his campaign, which has inspired some billionaire leftists like Starbucks founder Howard Schultz and hedge-fund investor Tom Steyer to consider outsider runs of their own.

Moreover, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who has disavowed high-end fundraisers and corporate cash, was able to raise only a third of the amount Sanders brought in. She has been burning through the cash at an unsustainable rate, spending $5.2 million of the $6 million she raised.

Much of the money went to build the sizable infrastructure—one of the biggest staffs in the field—that Warren has put together in states with early contests. But she is lagging in the polls behind candidates who have spent dimes to every dollar she has invested.

Most notable is South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who has spent less than 10 percent of the $7 million his campaign raised in the first quarter. Buttigieg, the gay Navy veteran, has rapidly ascended from obscurity into one of the Left’s most buzzed-about politicians.

He managed to raise nearly two-thirds of his money from under-$200 donors. Among those who wrote Buttigieg checks were actors Mandy Moore, Ryan Reynolds and Bradley Whitford.

Susie Tompkins Buell, one of the Bay Area’s biggest fundraisers, was so impressed by Buttigieg that she threw an event to raise money for the candidate even after announcing that she was supporting Harris.

Harris kept her spending to about 35 percent of the money she has raised. Among her donors were Ben Affleck, Elizabeth Banks, Eva Longoria and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

While Sanders had many more donors in California than Harris, the state’s junior senator took more big checks there than the Vermonter. Nearly a third of the money Harris raised came from Californians donating more than $200.

Among the other candidates who are off to a relatively strong financial start is former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who spent less than a third of the $9.4 million he raised during the quarter.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar raked in $5.2 million and spent $1.8 million.

Other candidates are struggling. Julian Castro, the former secretary of Housing and Urban Development, raised just $1.3 million; former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, $2 million.

The most an individual is permitted to contribute in the primaries is $2,800, but some candidates are asking big donors for double that amount—setting half of it aside to be used in the general election, should the candidate win the nomination.

At the same time that candidates are repudiating the corrosive effects of money in politics and disavowing donations from corporate political action committees, they are recruiting titans of industry to serve as bundlers for their campaigns, on call to tap networks of wealthy friends from the ranks of big tech, big pharma, big law and Hollywood.

Warren’s alternative approach still could work for her, if she can step up the pace of her fundraising. The senator will be buoyed, for now, by more than $10 million that was sitting in her Senate campaign account when she jumped into the race. She has transferred it over to her primary campaign.

Gillibrand will also be falling back on cash from her Senate account to keep her operation moving forward.

Sanders faces a different dilemma. He has to figure out where to spend his abundance of cash. At $15.7 million, Sanders ended the quarter with more in the bank than any of his rivals. More importantly, the fast clip at which he is raising money suggests the gap could grow rapidly as others spend down the reserves they had in other accounts.

That money could prove crucial to competing in a state like California, where the cost of campaigning is immense. Candidates will face tough decisions about whether they can afford to invest in the Golden State at the same time they are making their final push to win over voters in the traditional early states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Primary voting will begin in California next year, just as Iowans head to their caucuses.

It all could intensify pressure on some candidates to seek help in an unpalatable forbidden place: super PACs. Almost all of the candidates pledged to reject any help from these organizations, which can funnel unlimited money into electing them.

But there is nothing in the law that prohibits their friends and supporters from launching the efforts regardless. And veterans of presidential campaigns predict that is what may happen come this fall.

(c)2019 Los Angeles Times. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.