Sign up
You’re reading the Prompt 2024 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox.
Joe Biden is far outpacing Donald Trump’s 2024 fundraising, especially after the president’s record-setting event last week featuring multiple celebrities and former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. That haul brings Biden’s total to more than $128 million compared with Trump’s $96 million.
That’s an impressive lead, but I had to ask my Post Opinions colleagues E.J. Dionne and James Hohmann: Are Democrats overestimating the electoral value of Biden’s fundraising?
Alexi McCammond: Is anyone else weirded out by how Democrats are bragging about the more than $25 million President Biden got from his mega-fundraiser with Barack Obama and Bill Clinton? Especially when small-dollar donations are obviously more indicative of grassroots support and enthusiasm?
E.J. Dionne: The collapse of limits on very high-dollar fundraising, thanks to Supreme Court decisions, is really disturbing. There is a problem with this system we should confront again.
James Hohmann: I thought the most under-covered aspect of the mega-fundraiser is Clinton’s comeback as a surrogate. He was almost nowhere to be seen during the 2022 midterms. After #MeToo, a lot of Democrats saw him as a liability. Even Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s best friend in politics, raised money with him but didn’t stump with him in 2021. A stark contrast to McAuliffe’s run for Virginia governor in 2013, when they went everywhere together. The question now is how active Clinton will be on the campaign trail. And what kind of slot will he get to speak at the convention in Chicago?
E.J.: Clinton’s being there was a big deal — a sign that Biden knows he needs to mobilize the entire Democratic Party. I think a lot of Biden’s early moves are aimed at reassuring and rallying Democrats. He needs to get that done early after all the stories about Dems having doubts about his running.
Alexi: Now Democrats are jazzed about all the money Biden’s reelection campaign has brought in so far. Though I can’t help but wonder — are they overhyping his fundraising numbers?
E.J.: It’s worth noting that when it comes to campaign fundraising, there are two issues: The money itself and what fundraising numbers say about enthusiasm for a candidate.
Alexi: Okay, so what do Trump’s numbers tell us?
E.J.: The Post has new reporting showing a very steep decline in Trump’s small-dollar fundraising. I think that reflects not only exhaustion with all the emails people are getting but also a decline in the energy of the pro-Trump base.
James: Are we seeing it affect crowd size? I was struck that Bernie Moreno’s super PAC paid for the rally Trump held the weekend before the Ohio Senate primary. I saw that as evidence the Trump campaign might have some liquidity issues.
E.J.: Great point on Moreno. The sale of products (a $59.99 Bible? Really?) is a sign of those money problems James is talking about. Trump’s legal fees are eating into what he ought to be spending in the campaign. Would love to know what James thinks of Trump’s takeover of the Republican National Committee and what that means for spending on Trump’s campaign and down-ballot Republicans.
James: I actually think candidates in both parties have become way too dependent on small-dollar donors, and I miss the days when big donors had more sway.
Alexi: Wait, what?
James: We used to always lament the power of big money, for very good reasons. But it warps incentives when candidates get most of their cash in small-dollar increments. It makes campaigns extremely online and too eager to chase the outrage cycle by pandering to the stuff that most gins up the grassroots.
E.J.: One other thing about money: It lets you experiment. I think the new Biden ad appealing to Nikki Haley voters in GOP primaries is really interesting. Biden can learn if these voters can be brought over to vote for him. My hunch is independents and moderates might like these ads, too. But if they don’t work, he can move on.
Alexi: Biden and his team are explicitly saying that their fundraising proves to “the skeptics” and “the media” that Democrats are unified. I think that’s comical because (1) those numbers are reflections of a big-dollar fundraiser, and (2) pro-Palestinian protesters interrupted the fundraiser so … unity?
James: Raising lots of money is not a sign of Democratic unity. It’s a sign that Democrats hate Trump, which we all know. Also, there really aren’t going to be more than eight competitive states in the presidential election, and both campaigns will have enough to saturate the airwaves.
E.J.: Yes, small map, but also small margins. Do you agree, James, that organization could matter more than usual this cycle?
James: I think organization is worth no more than a field goal. It’s like special teams. Having lots of door knockers won’t matter if they’re knocking on the doors of angry Arab Americans in Dearborn or Black men in Atlanta who feel disillusioned with Biden.
E.J.: I’m a Patriots fan, and Adam Vinatieri’s field goals won us a lot of games! Those door knockers could matter when it comes to turning out, for example, ambivalent suburban moderates and older Black voters.
Alexi: Okay, guys, let’s get this bread. 😤
James: 🤑💲💳
E.J.: We can have a whole conversation in how far behind James I am in emojis! Politically significant! 😫
Democrats know better than anyone that having more money doesn’t secure a win (see: 2016). But political spending can dramatically alter a race. That’s why it’s important to look at who’s helping the campaigns raise all this money and how they’re doing it.
Consider what Craig Kennedy wrote for the Chronicle of Philanthropy about how nonprofit foundations are becoming bigger political players and therefore deserve more scrutiny: “Some wealthy individuals, including foreign nationals, are using charitable organizations … to skirt the limits and disclosure requirements that apply to campaigns and other political vehicles, such as political action committees. Any investigation of how nonprofits are used for political purposes is often stymied by the myriad ways that donors can contribute to such groups and by what many people in philanthropy argue is the right of nonprofits to not publicly disclose their donors.”
The murky practices extend far beyond charitable groups. For example, Tim Griffin, the attorney general of Arkansas, wrote for Politico Magazine about deceiving fundraising schemes that promise to “match” a voter’s contribution: “This scam is not only unethical, it’s also potentially illegal — and politicians who use it may find themselves under legal scrutiny,” he argued.
Yes, some “scrutiny” would be nice. Until there’s greater transparency and accountability around campaign finances, expect to continue seeing candidates and political groups stop at nothing to win the fundraising race.
As Biden’s team targets Black, Hispanic and Asian voters in a new $30 million ad campaign, users on r/AskTrumpSupporters are debating Trump’s ability to make inroads with people of color: One person noted, “Trump appears to remain extremely unpopular with African American women. Is there anything he can do or say that you think could turn this around?”
One self-identified Trump supporter suggested the problem is with women writ large not voting for conservative candidates: “It seems quite likely that some of the same forces pushing African American men away from the Democrats, and toward figures like Trump are the ones pushing African American women even further away. If I were a Republican strategist, I would lean into this.”
A post shared by Washington Post Opinions (@postopinions)
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Donald Low
Mort Laitner
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
visit website
