http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-effect-on-fundraising-threatens-down-ballot-republicans/article/2590406#.VyqiunqStu4.twitter'Trump effect' on fundraising threatens down-ballot RepublicansBy LISA SPIES • 5/4/16 6:25 PM
A few days ago, Donald Trump was again bragging to Chris Wallace that he is worth $10 billion. Anything close to that amount of net worth is impressive and unimaginable to most Americans. But in the world of presidential campaigns, the term billions no longer raises an eyebrow.
In 2012, President Obama and his allies spent $1.2 billion, and Mitt Romney and his allies came close to keeping up with the incumbent, with almost $1 billion. Now, the Hillary Clinton forces are estimating that this election may cost $2 billion.
I have raised funds for Republican candidates for over 15 years, and during that time I have raised money for three presidential campaigns, several governors and countless members of the House and Senate. In my experience, major donors give to candidates and party efforts to support them for three reasons. First, they have an established relationship with the candidate; second, they believe in what the candidate stands for; and third, they believe the candidate will win.
My party's presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, has laid none of the groundwork necessary for successful fundraising, and I fear it is because he doesn't "get" how political fundraising works. He has explained that his personal motivation for political giving in the past was that he gave to candidates from all parties, such as to Hillary Clinton in 2008, when he or his company wanted a favor from government.
That sort of transactional giving almost certainly occurs, but it is not the reason for most of the major donors that I deal with. In fact, the implication is offensive to most donors.
If a candidate needs to build relationships with donors, then attacking and insulting them is a bad place to start. Of course, candidates can't do it all on their own, so hiring an experienced finance team that is embedded within the major donor community is critical. Trump has raised about $10 million without the benefit of a team that can scale up his operation if he becomes the nominee. That's less than 1 percent of what he will need to compete.
Donors who give because they believe in what a candidate stands for are in a quandary with Trump because, to be charitable, he's not associated with any real policy positions other than building a wall, which most donors who are business people find laughable and perhaps even harmful to their businesses and investments.
For the past few presidential cycles, pro-Israel donors have been scared by President Obama's policies and donated to the Republican nominee believing that he would stand up for Israel. With Trump, there is deep distrust in his knowledge of the region and sincerity of his support for Israel, so foreign policy hawk donors are also now sitting on the sidelines.
Electability is the other reason that donors give. As long as Trump believes in himself, he can keep loaning money to his own campaign and keep the lights on. But for a presidential nominee, the fundraising obligation goes beyond his or her own campaign. At this point in 2012, presumptive nominee Romney was already working with the Republican National Committee and the "victory" joint fundraising committee, and for months now Hillary Clinton has been jointly raising funds with the DNC and Democratic state parties.
For the party committees, Trump is subject to the same hard dollar limits that every other donor is, and can't simply write a check. Those die-hard Romney enthusiasts who were giving $100,000 to the Romney Victory joint fundraising committee in May of 2012 to support the RNC and select Republican state parties just don't exist for Trump.
Ditto with the donors who usually step in a few months out from convention and give the final $10-$20 million to fund the convention's Host Committee. They are currently hiding from phone calls and trying to avoid giving to a convention that may have riots, a party that may have to fund a ground game for someone that they don't like or trust and a candidate that openly scorns them.
To be clear, the loser in this scenario is not Donald Trump. If he is the nominee, then he will have proven the ability to run a low-budget earned media campaign, and he can always liquidate assets and loan his campaign more money if necessary. The losers are the down-ballot Senate, House and state-level candidates who rely upon the RNC and state parties for their ground-game victory operations. They are now approaching a near panic state about the financial realities of a Trump nomination.
Lisa Spies is a political fundraiser with 15 years of experience raising national high-dollar donations for Republican presidential and U.S. Senate candidates and party committees. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
