Early Money: Who Is Donating To The Presidential Candidates?
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Maybe it’s the economy. Maybe it’s too early in the game. Or maybe it’s the candidates themselves. But for a state that loves its politics, Rhode Island has yet to put its money where its mouth is in the 2012 Presidential race, including with support for President Obama.
The Ocean State ranked ahead of only North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, Mississippi and Alaska in terms of dollars donated to the President or the seven official Republican candidates, as of the second quarter, which ended June 30. According to the Federal Election Commission, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum did not even receive a contribution from any Rhode Islanders in the first two quarters. Texas Governor Rick Perry, who will officially announce his candidacy today, is not on the list.
In total, Rhode Island residents contributed just $77,785 to Presidential campaigns in the first two quarters, with the overwhelming majority ($55, 439) going to President Obama.
Local Republican Frontrunner: Mitt Romney
The former Massachusetts Governor, who is still considered to be the favorite in the deep GOP primary, is the only candidate that has made an appearance in the state and has always been a favorite among prominent local GOP members.
According to FEC numbers, Romney raised $14,300 in the first two quarters. Those numbers will likely rise as Romney held a fundraiser in Newport at the beginning of the new quarter. Included among Romney''s top donors were former CVS Caremark CEO Tom Ryan, Mathew Enright of Bristol, Habib Gorgi of Providence and Richard Small of Rumford. The four donors contributed $2,500 each to Romney.
Late last month, Romney noted that he had received endorsements from former Governor Don Carcieri, former Congressman Ron Machtley, Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian as well as several members of the General Assembly.
“I am proud to have the support of these Rhode Island leaders,” Romney said. “I am especially pleased to have won the endorsement of Governor Carcieri. I know him well from our time serving as governors and look forward to working with him again during my campaign.”
Profughi: Economy And Dissatisfaction A Factor
Still, there isn’t a candidate (or the President, for that matter) that can be happy with their early haul in Rhode Island. Quest Research Pollster Victor Profughi says a number of factors contribute to the reason fundraising numbers have been so low out of the gate, but he said early numbers are important for a candidate’s viability in the long run.
“Early money is generally desirable because it shows the ability to raise money but also frequently discourages potential opponents from entering the race,” Profughi wrote in an e-mail to GoLocalProv. “In the case of the presidential races it may not be quite as important, since prospective candidates who think they will make great presidents may enter the race anyway....but if their fund raising efforts lag early they are also likely to drop out quickly once the field begins to solidify a bit after the Iowa caucus and a couple of early primaries.”
Profughi said the state of the economy and the state’s increasing unhappiness with the President has likely hurt fundraising as well.
“As for the general lack of fund raising success this time around: first, the economy is no doubt a factor, then there is quite a bit of dissatisfaction with Obama's performance on the part of the progressives and I suspect that this will have an impact,” he said.
Paul And Cain Rank 2nd And 3rd
As far as Republicans go, Texas Congressman Ron Paul and businessman Herman Cain were the only other candidates that managed to raise $1,000 in the first two quarters.
Paul received $1,800 from Rodney Driver of West Kingston, just over $1,000 from Robert Carawan of Portsmouth and $1,000 from Joseph Procaccini of Johnston.
Meanwhile, Cain raised $1,600 total in the first two quarters, which $1,000 coming from Warren Galkin, a prominent Republican donor from Warwick. According to finance reports, Galkin contributed over $30,000 to Republicans during the 2010 election cycle, including John Loughlin, Christine O’Donnell, Michelle Bachman and Marco Rubio. Galkin also donated to Democraic Congressman James Langevin, last year.
Galkin has also contributed to the campaigns of Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich.
Republicans Tend To Support Front Runner
The current lack of money for Republicans in Rhode Island isn’t much of a surprise, according to Darrell West, Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C.. West said local Republicans tend to support candidates from New England or the favorites.
He said that should be good news for Romney.
“Rhode Island Republicans generally have gone for candidates from the region or who seem to have a good chance of winning,” West said. “Romney should do very well in the state because he is from New England and currently is seen as the GOP frontrunner. It is hard to see any of the other Republicans getting much money because their views are too extreme for many within the state.”
RI: Tough To Raise Money
While Obama has outperformed his Republican counterparts, his fundraising leaves much to be desired as well, especially in a state considered to be as liberal as Rhode Island. The President’s top donors so far have been Martin Douglas of Newport ($5,000) as well as Democratic consultant Mark Weiner of East Greenwich, Alison Townsend of Barrington, Heidi Duffy of North Kingstown, who each contributed $2,500.
Rhode Island GOP Executive Director Patrick Sweeney said the state has historically been a tough place to raise money. From his perspective, however, Romney is the favorite.
“As far as money donated, there hasn't been a lot raised from either side of the aisle. Rhode Island historically is a tough state to raise money,” Sweeney said. “However, thus far, it looks like Governor Romney is a clear favorite. He has raised over twice the amount of money compared to the next closest Republican candidate. Yet, at this point, it is still early. But with a couple of debates under the candidates' belts and the Ames Straw Poll around the corner, I believe more voters will start paying attention and donating more.”
Sweeney said he still predicts a Republican will win the Presidency in 2012.
“While it may be early, our current President is forcing taxpayers to pay attention due to his lack of leadership,” he said. “The silver lining here is that no President has been elected to a second term when the unemployment rate is above 7.2% and given the state of the economy, I think it is fair to say, President Obama will be a one term President...no matter how much money he raises.”
If you valued this article, please LIKE GoLocalProv.com on Facebook by clicking HERE.
Comments:
Lis Velva
8:39am on Saturday, August 13, 2011
The only thing Obama has done is extend unemployment to 99 weeks. We all know money is the golden goose in winning, however this guy does not have a chance. He makes Carter look like Reagan. How bad can you be to make that possible.
John McGrath
8:57am on Saturday, August 13, 2011
Hey, c'mon, Republicans, donate to Perry, he's gone on record as stating hat Social Security is unconstitutional. He's out front on what Republicans stand for.
Robin Bugbee
10:13am on Saturday, August 13, 2011
Why is there such republican bile on this site? No matter what anyone writes it seems to generate an immediate and repugnant screed against Obama. This Republican/Democrat warfare is killing the country. We have to learn to work together instead of continually slandering those we do not agree with.
Joyce Bryant
10:56am on Saturday, August 13, 2011
Maybe Rhode Islanders aren't contributing because most of them are out of work.
C. Hovey
11:55am on Saturday, August 13, 2011
Our system is doesn’t work any more. Congress makes all spending decisions and Congress’ character is molded by two year re-election cycles where marketability is the litmus test for governing. Planning for 307 million citizens requires more than marketability. What’s needed is a Tweeter driven referendum for combined twelve years limits for anybody elected to the Presidency, the Senate or Congress. This would solve many, many problems, most importantly elected officials would be citizens first, not politicians aiming for life time careers. C.Hovey
John McGrath
12:11pm on Saturday, August 13, 2011
@C. Hovey ... The biggest problem in Congress is the job offers that members will get as a result of voting for special interests. Term limits will not solve this problem. In addition there is the possibility/probability that special interests are giving outright bribes (to secret bank accounts) rather just giving campaign contributions. Term limits will not solve this problem either.
C. Hovey
1:58pm on Saturday, August 13, 2011
@ John McGrath The list of benefits by removing political career possibilities is unending. Not the least of which is having politicians back in civilian life and getting civilians into government. “Special interests” (an overused coverall) are part of life and they will be with us term limits or not. Members of the Senate and House now wake up every morning with one thought uppermost in their minds. “What do I need to do today to make sure my career as a politician is secure?” Not what cshould I do in my best judgement to enact legislation that will help American quality of life. What would you rather have? More of the same or civilian input to govern 307 million. Worked well for the founding fathers
Nancy champ
4:40am on Sunday, August 14, 2011
I'm with C. Hovey after the recent spectacle of the interests of the American people being held hostage to politicking in the debt ceiling debate. Where I disagree, though, is the naivte of the expectation that things will work today as they did in 1790. So, agree w/ McGrath that this will not solve the problem.Still it is a step in the right direction.
John McGrath
7:18am on Sunday, August 14, 2011
@Nancy Champ .. The recent spectacle in the House was caused mostly by freshmen members. The government shutdown under Gingrinch was caused largely by freshmen members. Term limits cannot protect against extreme ideologues taking the House captive.
Nancy champ
11:00am on Sunday, August 14, 2011
@ John McGrath--The rise of extreme idealogues takes place against the backdrop or in response to a Washington system that is ruled by the same sets (R's and Dem's) of elites that have kept average people hostage no matter whether it is the Clinton machine, or the Republican machine in power. The fact that these are freshmen members does not necessarily invalidate the idea that term limits are potentially useful. These freshmen are grandstanding in the following context: they are all hoping to become part of the 'bed of roses' club, who continue to vote themselves incredible benefits and advantages and weild 'the real power' (as they suck up campaign donations from 'special interests', no doubt). The most credible thing Congress could do is vote to revoke their own lifetime benefits.
Nancy champ
11:08am on Sunday, August 14, 2011
@McGrath (continuted) I am in complete agreement that the lobbyists and covert funds of special interest groups is "the real issue", but the real problem is what can possibly be done about this in 2011? The founding fathers were not professional politicians, and when they weren't working or waging a war, they were founding this system. So, although they were prominent men of their age, they did not have to operate within a context of multinational corporations whose heads or ruling cabals have far more power and influence than ANY politician. So I am wondering what you think can be done to mitigate this in a practical way.