Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Comparison of comprehensive fundraising by Democratic and Republican Parties, 2009 and 2017
Evidence such as special election overperformance, heavily attended protest marches and town halls, and the generic congressional ballot have been presented as signs that the party has an advantage in the upcoming midterm elections.[1][2][3][4] However, another potential measurement of enthusiasm is comprehensive fundraising.
Partisan activists seeking an outlet for their opinion often open their wallets as their next-best option to casting a ballot. A Ballotpedia analysis of fundraising numbers tell a mixed story about each party’s enthusiasm as the 2018 midterm elections ramp up. While fundraising numbers in some elections support the hypothesis that Democrats are especially engaged, data from two other sources imply that Republicans are the party with the advantage.
In this article, we analyze which party’s apparatus has been more successful at fundraising in the first six months of 2017. Where is the money lining up? Are donors feeling pulled to national committees like the Democratic and Republican National Committees? Are they giving in greater sums to their direct elected officials? With so many different routes available to a possible political donor, we wanted to look at some data and see which pipelines seemed to be more popular right now. In the sections below, you will find:
- An overview of the avenues for political donors
- A comparison of party committee
- A comparison of U.S. Senate fundraising
- A comparison of U.S. House fundraising
- A comparison of special election fundraising
- The total amount raised by Democratic and Republican apparatuses
To put these numbers in context, we also compared this year’s fundraising numbers to the first six months of 2009—the first two quarters of the 2010 election cycle. Many observers are drawing parallels between 2010 and 2018, both the first midterm elections under a new president of a new party.[5][6][7][8] (While 2014 is the most recent midterm election, 2010 is a better comparison because, like 2018, it came two years into the new president’s term.) A comparison of these two cycles’ early fundraising numbers can be a proxy for comparing each side’s enthusiasm in the two elections. The 2009 fundraising numbers and the 2010 election results can also tell us whether we can expect current fundraising differentials to be predictive of the actual election results next year.
Defining apparatus
There are many avenues political donors can take with their money. They can donate directly to candidates, but there are many different types of candidates: federal candidates, state candidates, special-election candidates, and future candidates. They can also donate directly to their preferred party through a centralized official committee. Finally, they can choose to direct their political spending to groups not controlled by candidates or their campaigns, such as 501(c)(4)’s or independent-expenditure groups—super PACs—that raise awareness of political issues or advocate one or another side or issue.
Because of the sprawling nature of each side’s fundraising apparatus, we have limited our analysis to four directly comparable cases:
- Donations to each side’s directly controlled party committees in 2009 and 2017.
- Donations to the highest-fundraising incumbent U.S. senators up for election in 2010 and 2018.
- Donations to the same U.S. House members in 2009 and 2017.
- Funds raised for special elections in 2009 vs. 2017.
Satellite spending groups predate the creation of super PACs. But, because the Citizens United court case that made super PACs possible occurred in 2010, no 2009-to-2017 comparison is possible for independent-expenditure groups.
Party committee fundraising comparison
Each party has several committees, apart from its candidates, where it accepts donations to be used broadly for all races of a certain type—for example, the Democratic and Republican Governors Associations for gubernatorial races. Based on fundraising by these official party committees in the first two quarters of 2017, Republicans have the financial edge.
| Fundraising by Party Committees | ||
|---|---|---|
| Democrats | In 2009 | In 2017 |
| DNC | $37,412,431 | $38,171,284 |
| DSCC | $23,228,380 | $28,729,884 |
| DCCC | $30,854,116 | $59,946,487 |
| DGA | $11,597,071 | $18,985,548 |
| DLCC | $1,313,857 | $4,362,196 |
| DAGA | $1,633,718 | $2,964,937 |
| NDRC | N/A | $2,528,442 |
| ASDC | $77,775 | $117,320 |
| TOTAL | $106,117,347 | $155,806,098 |
| Sources: Federal Election Commission Internal Revenue Service | ||
| Fundraising by Party Committees | ||
|---|---|---|
| Republicans | In 2009 | In 2017 |
| RNC | $45,695,091 | $75,398,811 |
| NRSC | $20,694,618 | $27,973,444 |
| NRCC | $17,548,174 | $60,016,092 |
| RGA | $12,235,267 | $30,761,413 |
| RSLC | $3,464,088 | $6,529,333 |
| RAGA | N/A | $7,314,089 |
| TOTAL | $99,637,238 | $207,993,182 |
| Sources: Federal Election Commission Internal Revenue Service | ||
The various official arms of the Republican Party raised a combined $208.0 million in the first two quarters of 2017, compared to $155.8 million for the official arms of the Democratic Party. This represents an increase in giving for both parties over the first two quarters of 2009—but the GOP more than doubled its dollars raised, while Democrats saw an increase of 47 percent. In other words, while both parties are raising more money in 2017, the GOP organizations saw their fundraising increase at a larger rate than the Democratic groups. This contradicts the popular narrative that Democrats are far more energized than Republicans.
In the first two quarters of 2009, Democratic Party committees raised $106.1 million, almost $7 million more than the Republican committees’ $99.6 million total. This implied that enthusiasm was with the Democrats in 2009, but Republicans ultimately won at the ballot box the following year. Likewise, Republicans have the financial advantage here in 2017, but early polls imply that Democrats are ahead in number of votes. Regardless, based on past statistics, it does not appear that party-committee fundraising predicts future election results.
However, fundraising discrepancies between the party committees may not be the best measure of enthusiasm. Instead, they may reflect inherent differences in where Democrats and Republicans prefer to donate. Therefore, we also looked at three different measurements of candidate fundraising: U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and special elections.
U.S. Senate fundraising comparison
As of August 2017, 33 U.S. Senate seats are slated to be on the ballot in 2018, compared to 37 that were on the ballot in 2010.[9] In addition, more Democratic incumbents and fewer Republican incumbents are up for election in 2018. So, comparing each party's total dollars raised would be skewed. Finally, differences in which incumbents (Class III vs. Class I) are on the ballot make direct comparisons difficult.
As a solution, we compared each party's top eight fundraisers from the first two quarters of 2017 to the top eight fundraisers from the first two quarters of 2009. By this measure, Democrats top Republicans. However, it is important to note that these races' varying competitiveness could also affect these numbers. A senator in a difficult re-election bid is more likely to raise money at a faster rate in order to build a war chest for the pending battle.
| Top 8 Best Fundraisers Among U.S. Senators Up for Election | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In 2009 | In 2017 | |||
| Democrats | ||||
| Harry Reid | $5,494,236 | Elizabeth Warren | $8,712,883 | |
| Chuck Schumer | $5,023,689 | Kirsten Gillibrand | $7,638,494 | |
| Blanche Lincoln | $2,993,649 | Claire McCaskill | $5,993,741 | |
| Michael Bennet | $2,649,130 | Tim Kaine | $5,555,421 | |
| Patty Murray | $2,577,602 | Bob Casey | $5,357,371 | |
| Barbara Boxer | $2,376,993 | Chris Murphy | $5,042,029 | |
| Chris Dodd | $2,266,945 | Sherrod Brown | $5,040,409 | |
| Byron Dorgan | $2,262,661 | Tammy Baldwin | $4,766,904 | |
| TOTAL | $25,644,905 | TOTAL | $48,107,252 | |
| Republicans | ||||
| John McCain | $2,962,949 | Ted Cruz | $2,894,873 | |
| John Thune | $2,049,747 | Jeff Flake | $2,884,392 | |
| David Vitter | $1,979,532 | Dean Heller | $2,824,672 | |
| Richard Burr | $1,862,692 | Orrin Hatch | $2,536,074 | |
| Richard Shelby | $1,825,551 | John Barrasso | $2,287,923 | |
| Jim DeMint | $1,269,977 | Roger Wicker | $1,885,950 | |
| Johnny Isakson | $1,253,501 | Deb Fischer | $1,177,704 | |
| Bob Bennett | $1,235,045 | Bob Corker | $759,126 | |
| TOTAL | $14,438,994 | TOTAL | $17,250,714 | |
| Source: Federal Election Commission | ||||
The eight best fundraisers among Democratic U.S. senators up for election in 2018 raised a total of $48.1 million, more than doubling the top eight Republicans ($17.3 million). The Democratic total is also almost twice the fundraising haul of their counterparts in 2009, $25.6 million. Meanwhile, Republican senatorial fundraising has increased by just $2.8 million since 2009.
In 2009, Democratic senators outraised Republican senators, $25.6 million to $14.4 million—a narrower gap than in 2017. In 2010, Democrats lost six U.S. Senate seats.[10]
U.S. House fundraising comparison
Candidates for the U.S. House offer a more direct comparison between 2009 and 2017 because many sitting representatives were and are up for re-election in both 2010 and 2018. Ballotpedia randomly chose 30 veteran U.S. representatives at random—15 from each party—and compared their fundraising totals in the first two quarters of 2009 to the first two quarters of 2017. From this perspective, Republicans appear to enjoy more enthusiasm among donors. However, as with U.S. senators, the competitiveness of each incumbent’s district may also be affecting fundraising totals.[11]
| Fundraising by 30 Randomly Selected U.S. Representatives | ||
|---|---|---|
| Democrats | In 2009 | In 2017 |
| Kathy Castor | $144,486 | $126,813 |
| Emanuel Cleaver | $152,650 | $265,359 |
| Gene Green | $227,433 | $302,690 |
| Brian Higgins | $428,126 | $161,156 |
| Jim Himes | $973,295 | $542,343 |
| Rick Larsen | $254,638 | $190,799 |
| Dave Loebsack | $147,811 | $564,300 |
| Stephen Lynch | $232,779 | $115,033 |
| Gwen Moore | $111,542 | $239,737 |
| Grace Napolitano | $98,540 | $52,802 |
| Bill Pascrell | $441,622 | $339,031 |
| David Price | $59,631 | $87,466 |
| Tim Ryan | $199,811 | $500,087 |
| John Sarbanes | $192,825 | $443,858 |
| Jackie Speier | $104,873 | $350,917 |
| TOTAL | $3,770,062 | $4,282,391 |
| Republicans | In 2009 | In 2017 |
| Robert Aderholt | $215,000 | $436,885 |
| Vern Buchanan | $867,347 | $636,754 |
| Charlie Dent | $304,369 | $467,898 |
| Mario Diaz-Balart | $195,623 | $422,808 |
| Trent Franks | $139,524 | $77,780 |
| Kay Granger | $378,927 | $725,445 |
| Peter King | $379,275 | $154,008 |
| Dave Reichert | $526,912 | $421,706 |
| Dana Rohrabacher | $56,455 | $508,713 |
| John Shimkus | $374,975 | $568,769 |
| Bill Shuster | $141,759 | $827,650 |
| Mike Turner | $189,341 | $277,434 |
| Fred Upton | $233,830 | $549,958 |
| Rob Wittman | $282,635 | $385,634 |
| Don Young | $219,812 | $240,030 |
| TOTAL | $4,505,784 | $6,701,470 |
| Source: Federal Election Commission | ||
So far this year, this cross-section of Republican representatives has outraised this cross-section of Democratic representatives, $6.7 million to $4.3 million. However, as mentioned above, differences in the competitiveness of these randomly selected races may explain this Republican advantage rather than differences in enthusiasm level. It would not explain, however, the higher Republican rate of increase in fundraising since 2009. In 2009, these same Republicans outraised these same Democrats $4.5 million to $3.8 million. This means that, so far in 2017, these 15 Republicans have raised 49 percent more than they did in 2009. The 15 Democrats, however, have raised just 14 percent more. As far as the U.S. House is concerned, enthusiasm among Republican donors has increased since 2009 by more than it has among Democratic donors.
Special election fundraising comparison
The indicator of enthusiasm that has received the most media coverage thus far has been special elections. Media attention has focused on the Democratic efforts to pick up previously Republican-held districts. With Democrats coming close to upsets in heavily Republican districts such as Kansas’s 4th Congressional District and South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District, this indicator is generally seen as a good one for Democrats. An analysis of fundraising numbers in special elections tells the same story. In special elections for the U.S. House that have pitted one Democrat against one Republican, the GOP is at a sharp money disadvantage.
| Fundraising in Special Elections | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democrats | Republicans | |||
| In 2009 | ||||
| Scott Murphy | $2,516,709 | Jim Tedisco | $1,697,047 | |
| Mike Quigley | $744,841 | Rosanna Pulido | $29,856 | |
| Judy Chu | $1,383,699 | Betty Chu | $164,744 | |
| TOTAL | $4,645,249 | TOTAL | $1,891,647 | |
| In 2017 | ||||
| James Thompson | $857,755 | Ron Estes | $783,331 | |
| Rob Quist | $6,705,084 | Greg Gianforte | $4,894,336 | |
| Archie Parnell | $1,047,354 | Ralph Norman | $1,535,951 | |
| Jon Ossoff | $30,228,428 | Karen Handel | $6,577,390 | |
| TOTAL | $38,838,621 | TOTAL | $13,791,008 | |
| Source: Federal Election Commission | ||||
So far in this year’s special elections, Democratic candidates have outraised Republican candidates $38.8 million to $13.8 million. A full $30.2 million of the Democratic sum is thanks to Jon Ossoff, the party’s candidate in the highly competitive June 20 election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. Indeed, Ossoff's fundraising alone accounts for 12.2 percent of the total 2017 contributions to all Democratic entities analyzed in this article. However, even if you exclude that election, Democrats have outraised Republicans $8.6 million to $7.2 million.
However, Democratic candidates also outraised Republicans in 2009’s three special elections, $4.6 million to $1.9 million. Although this helped Democrats successfully defend their Democratic-held seats in all three special elections, it did not presage success in the general election.
Both the Democratic and Republican fundraising totals from 2017 are increases from their financial hauls in 2009, even accounting for the fact that there were four interparty special elections in 2017 compared to three in 2009. Therefore, the special-election case implies that enthusiasm among both parties' donors significantly increased since 2009. However, the increase in Republican fundraising has not kept up with the increase in Democratic fundraising. Democratic special-election candidates have raised 8.4 times as much cash in 2017 as in 2009, while Republican candidates have raised just 7.3 times as much.
Again, these numbers may reflect the parties' opinions on where their money is best spent. Pro-Republican outside groups outspent pro-Democratic outside groups in 2017's special elections, narrowing the Democratic financial edge in these races. Although it is impossible to know how much money was donated to super PACs with the intention of influencing 2017's special elections, outside groups spent $3.7 million supporting the four Republican candidates listed above and $19.4 million opposing the four Democrats, for a total of $23.1 million. By contrast, outside groups spent $1.2 million supporting the four Democratic candidates listed above and $7.1 million opposing the four Republicans, for a total of $8.3 million.
Totals
Adding together all of the various options available to a political donor examined in this study cancels out each party’s advantage in its respective arenas. The Democratic and Republican apparatuses have raised almost the same amount of money so far in 2017.
| Fundraising by Type of Entity | ||
|---|---|---|
| Democrats | In 2009 | In 2017 |
| Party committees | $106,117,347 | $155,806,098 |
| Top-fundraising U.S. senators | $25,644,905 | $48,107,252 |
| Random selection of U.S. representatives | $3,770,062 | $4,282,391 |
| Special-election candidates | $4,645,249 | $38,838,621 |
| TOTAL | $140,177,563 | $247,034,362 |
| Republicans | In 2009 | In 2017 |
| Party committees | $99,637,238 | $207,993,182 |
| Top-fundraising U.S. senators | $14,438,994 | $17,250,714 |
| Random selection of U.S. representatives | $4,505,784 | $6,701,470 |
| Special-election candidates | $1,891,647 | $13,791,008 |
| TOTAL | $120,473,663 | $245,736,374 |
| Sources: Federal Election Commission Internal Revenue Service | ||
In the first two quarters of 2017, across the four domains measured here, Democrats have raised $247.0 million to Republicans’ $245.7 million. In 2009, the parties were also more or less evenly matched, although Democrats had a slight advantage in these fundraising arenas: $140.2 million to $120.5 million. Both parties’ fundraising has increased substantially since then—Republicans’ by slightly more than Democrats’ (104% to 76%).
There could be many explanations for this discrepancy. Different donors may simply have different views on where best to spend their money—with Democrats preferring to give to Senate campaigns and campaigns with immediate payoffs, while Republicans invest more in the U.S. House as well as in their party establishment. Factors other than voter enthusiasm can also affect fundraising. For example, Republican fundraising strength in 2017 may be due to the fact that the GOP is the current ruling party in Washington. In 2009, when Democrats were pulling in more money, they also enjoyed a full government trifecta. Donors, especially major ones, often donate disproportionately to the party in power.
Footnotes
- ↑ FiveThirtyEight, "Democrats Are Overperforming In Special Elections Almost Everywhere," June 5, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "This is what we learned by counting the women’s marches," February 7, 2017
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Republican Lawmakers Face Hostile Town-Hall Crowds," February 23, 2017
- ↑ FiveThirtyEight, "Congress Generic Ballot," accessed August 22, 2017
- ↑ The New York Times, "What Democrats’ Losses in 2010 Can Tell Us About G.O.P.’s Chances in 2018," May 5, 2017
- ↑ Roll Call, "The 2010 Election: Not Just About Health Care," March 31, 2017
- ↑ The Hill, "Dems see ’18 upside in ObamaCare repeal," December 8, 2016
- ↑ FiveThirtyEight, "The Health Care Bill Could Be A Job-Killer For GOP Incumbents," May 4, 2017
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Official Election Results for United States Senate, 2010 U.S. Senate Campaigns," accessed August 22, 2017
- ↑ The New York Times, "Election 2010, Senate Map," accessed August 22, 2017
- ↑ Note: According to the Cook Political Report, of the 15 Democratic-held seats analyzed below, 14 are currently rated Solid Democratic, and one is rated Likely Democratic. At this point in 2009, these same districts broke down as 13 Solid Democratic and two Likely Republican. Of the 15 Republican-held seats, 13 are currently rated Solid Republican, one is rated Likely Republican, and one is rated Lean Republican. In 2009, these same districts broke down as nine Solid Republican, five Likely Republican, and one Lean Republican. Therefore, although the Democratic and Republican seats in this analysis are not exactly equally competitive, they all represent relatively safe seats, and their competitiveness has changed little since 2009, allowing for an apples-to-apples comparison.
