Bush’s money machine

It’s a shame when I end the week’s posts on a negative note, but today’s must-read article happens to be pretty depressing.

While nine Democratic presidential candidates battle one another for every available fundraising penny, Bush is cruising the country building an unprecedented war chest.

With the second quarter FEC reports due Monday, speculation is circulating as to which Dem candidates will be able to bring in as much as $5 million for the quarter. Bush, meanwhile, has hosted fundraising events that bring in up to $4 million — in one night.

Bush’s Q2 report will probably be about $30 million, all of which has been raised in just the last few weeks. Bush’s total will be comparable to all of the Democrats’ fundraising totals combined, and they’ve been begging for cash every day for months.

In fact, Bush is expected to raise as much as $250 million before Election Day. Democrats, meanwhile, will be fighting with each other for every potential check. Bush won’t have to spend any of his vast fundraising fortune until he feels like it, while Dems will have to spend considerably to try and break away from the nine-candidate pack.

At the risk of sounding overdramatic, this is a truly dreadful position for the Dems to be in. Bush may have the worst economic record of any president since Hoover, he may have a reckless and ineffective foreign policy, he may lie repeatedly, he may be far more right-wing than anyone anywhere could have predicted three years ago, and yet a year from now he’ll be ready to spend his way to a second term.

The LA Times’ Ron Brownstein explains today in a fascinating article that Bush’s financial advantage over his yet-to-be-determined Democratic foe will probably be the most dramatic lead any presidential candidate has enjoyed since campaign finance laws were shaped in 1974.

Brownstein notes that Dems already realize the “nightmare scenario” on the horizon: “a nominee with little money left after a bruising primary fight; a Democratic National Committee weakened by the ban on the unlimited contributions known as ‘soft’ money that previously accounted for most of its budget, and a president sitting on more cash than any White House candidate ever. Taken together, these developments could allow Bush to spend massive sums to tar Democratic nominee and burnish his own image in key states. The Democrats, meanwhile, would be unable to come close to matching Bush’s spending.”

I told you this was depressing.

Now, you might be thinking, so what? So Bush will have more money than his advisors will know what to do with. That won’t matter! Bush has a truly horrible record as president and all the money in the world won’t change that, you might believe.

Presidential campaigns, however, depend on money and fundraising can dictate outcomes. Bush will be airing dramatic television commercials touting his commitment to education (despite cutting funds for his own education program), public service (despite breaking his promise about funding AmeriCorps), and national security (despite considerably underfunding his own domestic security programs). Too many voters will see the ads and believe them.

And just to add insult to injury, Brownstein’s article notes that while Bush is out raising a quarter of a billion dollars for his campaign, the Republican National Committee “could raise as much as the Bush campaign or more.” In the 2000 election, the RNC took in $380 million — 50% more than the DNC, and that was without the help of a popular incumbent.

So what does all this mean? Dems desperately need a presidential ticket with broad national appeal, featuring candidates who have a ton of money, can raise a ton of money, or preferably both.