Kerry matches Edwards on strong Q1

Following up on the earlier news on presidential fundraising, John Kerry looks as though he’s done about as well as John Edwards in the first quarter of 2003, raising about $7 million.

If you include the nearly $3 million transferred from Kerry’s Senate campaign fund, the Massachusetts Democrat has raised about $10 million for his presidential campaign so far. (Though, to be fair, if Edwards included his Senate fund of $1.4 million to his Q1 totals, he’d be right behind Kerry with a cumulative $8.8 million)

Other candidates will be quick to remind everyone that the “fundraising primary” isn’t always indicative of the candidate who’s going to win and that’s certainly true. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) was extraordinarily successful in raising money for his 1996 presidential campaign, but he didn’t last long. Magazine publisher Steve Forbes gave his campaign tons of inherited cash, but he never seriously contended for the GOP nomination in either of his two races.

Yet, prowess as a fundraiser is an important sign of a candidate’s strength. Yes, a candidate can raise lots of money and still lose, but remember the inverse — presidential aspirants who don’t raise significant sums almost certainly will lose.

I don’t mean to sound callous. I sincerely wish that fundraising wasn’t important to the campaign process and that the strengths of a given candidate weren’t compared against his or her abilities to recruit donors. I’m just recognizing a reality of the system we are currently operating in. Fundraising abilities are, unfortunately, a prerequisite to remaining competitive.

In fact, the fundraising abilities of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, will be even more important in 2004 than in previous races. Changes to the campaign finance system will make it easier for Bush to raise more money next year than any candidate has ever raised for a presidential race, especially since maximum contribution limits have doubled. I’ve heard estimates from the GOP that Bush will probably raise over $100 million. To even hope to compete against an incumbent with those kinds of resources, Dems need a candidate who can raise boatloads of money. There’s simply no way around that.