No Revenue Sharing Among Republicans

The Wash Times reports on stingy Republican senators who have amassed ginormous war chests for campaigns and are refusing to fork over much of it to help fellow GOPpers win elections.

[Kay Bailey] Hutchison, one of the top Republican leaders in the Senate, has $9.5 million on hand, and polls in Texas show her trouncing her opponent by 20 points or more. She has given $115,000 to the NRSC [National Republican Senatorial Comittee], a little more than 1 percent of her campaign holdings.

Richard Shelby of Alabama is also tagged as a skinflint in the story. On the Dem side of the aisle, things are a little bit different:

[F]ive Democrats have transferred $1 million or more from their campaign accounts to the DSCC during the current two-year cycle, compared with only one Republican -- Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Far and away, the most generous Democrat is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has transferred more than $2 million from her campaign account to the DSCC. Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Dianne Feinstein of California also have given $1 million or more from their campaign accounts.

More here.

Comments

[thoreau]

So what you're saying is that Republican Senators are reluctant to give money to lost causes, but Democratic Senators are eager to throw money at the problem.

Makes sense to me.

[Xmas]

Wow, another way to sneak around campaign finance reform. And it's only available to the incumbent, big parties.

I'm so surprised.

[Jim Bob]

Greedy politicians?! Oh my GOD, it's the end-times!

[madpad]

So what you're saying is that Republican Senators are reluctant to give money to lost causes, but Democratic Senators are eager to throw money at the problem.

Hmmm. So the past 5 years of massive, unchecked government spending is NOT Republicans throwing money at problems?

[db]

All your Republican senators are refuse to fork.

[thoreau]

Hmmm. So the past 5 years of massive, unchecked government spending is NOT Republicans throwing money at problems?

Maybe the Republican Senators are rediscovering their frugal instincts just as they're about to lose power.

Hey, I can dream.

[some random lurker]

Democrats good. Republicans evil.

Just saving joe the trouble of posting to this thread.

[Mutt]

[F]ive Democrats have transferred $1 million or more from their campaign accounts to the DSCC during the current two-year cycle, compared with only one Republican -- Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Uh, stop the presses! This sentence implies Mitch McConnell is giving money to the Democrats. If he is, that's one way to bury the lede!?

[jb]

madpad: No, it's them attempting to amass a giant war chest.

And succeeding, except for the last word in the sentence.

[madpad]

Far and away, the most generous Democrat is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has transferred more than $2 million from her campaign account to the DSCC.

Thank heavens Tom Delay never did anything like that to help him consolidate power...oh wait! He did.

[madpad]

No, it's them attempting to amass a giant war chest.

Good one, jb. But, what about the other 4/5ths of the budget?

[Eryk Boston]

Sounds like Hillary is buying party loyalty. Not a dumb move if it works.

[joe]

I can't really blame the Republicans.

Throwing money into Congressional races at this point would be flushing it down the toilet.

It's much smarter for them to marshall their resources for future fights that aren't a foregone conclusion.

Lurker,

Ha ha.

[Jeff P]

At least the dems put their money, literally, where their mouth is on the whole redistribution of wealth thing.

I, for one, don't hold out a shread of hope that they'll unseat the GOP, though. They've missed every broad side of a barn that they've passed so far, and this was isn't much different.

[The Libertarian Guy]

"Democrats good. Republicans evil."

No, they're both evil.

[some random lurker]

Libertarian Guy,

Not in joe's world

[James]

Actually, the way this works is, the senators and representatives in question have to give part of their war chest to the national party organization to keep their committee seats. Seriously. It's expected. It's not like many of them face a real challenger, after all.

So anyone who isn't giving it up has his or her own reasons. Usually it's because they're planning to run for a bigger and better office which, for senators, can only mean one thing. Is this a tell that Kay Bailey Hutchinson is a dark horse candidate for the presidency? Or is she holding out for a better committee assignment?

Kerry has actually been sharply criticized in Democratic circles for stinginess in this election cycle. The big number he cites is actually money he gave AFTER the 2004 election to get the DSCC out of debt. To be completely fair to him, he has been out stumping for Democratic candidates in other districts and attending their fundraisers. But his holding cash is seen as a sign that he's going to take another shot at the White House. Clinton, on the other hand, is taking a different tack, trying to buy support from the Little People.