In American politics, who has more money to spend -- the right or the left?

[BrainGlutton]

Inspired by this recent Democratic Underground thread about “The Big Soros Lie.”

I don’t mean just electoral politics, but the entire networks of political think tanks, organizations and media outlets. David Horowitz’s Discover the Networks site portrays a vast web of interlocking lefty organizations with visible trails of massive funding from wealthy donors. Not to dispute the reality of any of that (though some would), but while on the left you’ve got George Soros and a few Hollywood celebs, on the right you’ve got Richard Mellon Scaife, the Olin Foundation, the Coors family, the National Association of Manufacturers, etc. Which side engages in more “checkbook activism”? Which side contributes more $$$ in toto?

Related but separate question: Which major political party has more money to spend on campaigning in a given election cycle – the Dems or the Pubs? Does anybody have good figures?

[Shagnasty]

It is really a hard question to define. Right wing talk radio is very popular all across the nation even here in very liberal Boston. Conservative TV commentary shows like Bill O’Reilly are as well. Liberal media except for some newspapers and a few magazines tends to tank hard and fast because of lack of interest.

How do you draw the line between outlets that people choose to listen to themselves and those that are a push for a given political party?

[DanBlather]

I think the people with the big money are more interested in buying access to the party in power rather than caring who is in power. The Dems are seeing a lot of money right now because it looks like they will be in power for a while.

In reality, Hollywood does not have that much money; it is just very visible. Insurance, aerospace, and high-tech are all bigger. All of those industries have things they want: insurance companies are afraid of a single-payer medical system, aerospace wants an in on the appropriations process, and Gates wants more H1-B visas. Hollywood (as an industry) is more concerned with things like copyright, anti-piracy, etc. They seem to have both liberal and conservative politicians in their pocket.

[BrainGlutton]

@DanBlather

I think the people with the big money are more interested in buying access to the party in power rather than caring who is in power.

That’s how it used to be. It seems to have changed somewhat since Goldwater tanked in '64.

[BrainGlutton]

@Shagnasty

It is really a hard question to define. Right wing talk radio is very popular all across the nation even here in very liberal Boston. Conservative TV commentary shows like Bill O’Reilly are as well. Liberal media except for some newspapers and a few magazines tends to tank hard and fast because of lack of interest.

How do you draw the line between outlets that people choose to listen to themselves and those that are a push for a given political party?

Talk radio makes its own money, or is expected to, unless it’s on a community/religious/NPR/otherwise-noncommercial station. If a given commercial station/show is operating at a loss and being subsidized by an outside donor, that’s a clue right there. Not that I know of any examples (possibly Air America, but possibly not).

[Kimstu]

I think the size of electoral campaign chests depends largely on the nature of the election. For instance, the Democratic Presidential candidate Clinton has raised the most money so far for the 2008 campaign. But Republican candidate Romney comes in a close second, and other Republican candidates apparently out-fundraised most other Democratic ones:

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney raised $23 million in this year’s first quarter, outpacing his main Republican rivals and almost catching Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in what is expected to be the costliest race in U.S. history.

One of the Republican front-runners, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, reported on Monday raising more than $15 million as candidates rushed to cast their fund-raising clout in the best possible light as an early sign of success.

On the Democratic side Clinton on Sunday reported raising $26 million, a record for this early in the race.

Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona have led the early Republican polls, but McCain revealed he only raised about $12.5 million. […]

While they trailed Clinton, who added $10 million to her war chest from her recent Senate re-election campaign for a total of $36 million, Romney and Giuliani were ahead of former Democratic Sen. John Edwards who reported raising more than $14 million.

For national campaigns in general, data from the Federal Election Commission apparently indicates that Republicans have had a substantial financial advantage over Democrats for several years, but that the gap began to close in the 2006 elections:

The Republican National Committee [in June 2006] is lagging behind its totals from two years ago, though it continues to have a financial lead over the Democratic National Committee. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, headed by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (N.C.), has raised more than $50 million this election cycle – $6 million less than its Democratic counterpart.

On the House side, the National Republican Congressional Committee remains ahead of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But the gap is smaller than in the past, and the trends are in the Democrats’ favor. The DCCC had raised 45 percent more through the end of April than it had at the same point in 2004. The NRCC, meanwhile, saw a 13 percent drop over the same period. […]

Cumulatively, Republicans still have more money than Democrats, but the disparities are less stark than in recent elections. At this point in the 2003-2004 cycle – adding up money to the national parties, the congressional campaign committees and individual candidates through March 31 – Democrats raised 69 percent of what Republicans did. So far this cycle, Democrats are raising 85 percent of what Republicans have. […]

There are some bright signs for Republicans. The RNC has far more money in the bank than the DNC – $44.7 million to $9.4 million as of the end of April – heading into the peak of the campaign season. The party is also likely to benefit from a summertime fundraising push by the White House. […]

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, whose committee has seen a 10 percent fundraising drop, compared with 2004, said Internet fundraising has allowed Democrats to reach a new group of liberal donors and narrow the GOP’s edge with individuals. But he said his party still holds a solid financial lead because of money raised by state parties.

Still, the trends at the national level are diminishing what in past years has been a powerful GOP asset: the ability to overpower opponents with expensive television advertising and voter-mobilization campaigns in House and Senate races. […]

In 2002, at this point in the election, the DCCC had raised $6.5 million from donors who gave less than $200. This year, [DCCC Chairman Rahm] Emanuel has tripled such donations to nearly $21 million. Other Democratic committees also have experienced growth. […]

Over at the NRCC, which has spent more than $55 million building a list of smaller donors in recent years, contributions from individuals are not increasing much. In 2002, the committee had raised $27 million from less-than-$200 donors at this point in the election, compared with $30 million now.

Carl Forti, NRCC spokesman, said Republicans are victims of their own success. He said the NRCC in particular spent so much money on direct mail and other techniques targeting individual donors over the past decade that they essentially “maximized our potential return.”