ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 TAG: 9704220091
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: KNIGHT-RIDDER/TRIBUNE
Democrats say that success made the DNC rely on wealthy and corporate donors in the past election.
Aided by the Lincoln Bedroom and other White House perks, President Clinton inspired entertainment and industry fat cats to shower the Democratic Party with millions of dollars last year. But he was far less successful with the very people his party purports to represent - the middle class.
When it came to donations of the $10, $25 and $50 variety, it was the party typically identified with the wealthy - Republicans - that hit the motherlode. And that sent the White House into a tizzy.
As Clinton seesawed between public vows to protect the middle class and private parties with rich contributors, Republicans were quietly and systematically shattering records among small givers. People who write checks in response to letters or phone calls, who don't attend fund-raising galas or receive private audiences with decision-makers gave Republicans more than twice as much money as they provided Democrats last year, federal records show.
It is this small-donor advantage, not the slimmer gap in money from bigwigs, that gave Republicans the financial edge Clinton repeatedly has invoked to explain why he and his staff so voraciously chased big money. It also was Clinton & Co.'s fear that a shortage of cash would lead to a shortage of votes that escalated the money chase to historic proportions, White House and party officials said.
``It became an arms race because we were catching up,'' said one high-ranking administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. ``The party was more aggressive about raising it. We also invested a lot more time and energy on it.''
Their efforts paid off. Offering access to Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and their wives as enticement, the Democratic National Committee raised nearly $102 million in large, unrestricted ``soft money'' donations in 1995 and 1996, according to the Federal Elections Commission. The intense effort helped to more than triple what the DNC raised from big givers during the previous presidential election, bringing it close to the $113million collected by the Republican National Committee.
Small money was another story.
Both parties raised record amounts for themselves. But in 1996 alone, the RNC raked in an eye-popping $64.8 million in amounts of $200 or less, more than twice as much as the DNC's $30.8 million, FEC figures show.
The Democrats' inability to keep up with Republicans in small donations meant they had to rely more than ever before on large contributions - checks of often hundreds of thousands of dollars - to buy television ads and build up the party before the election, said one White House official.
Democrats say their problem is twofold. First, people who give even as little as $25 still are fairly affluent and, therefore, more likely to be Republican.
And the GOP has mastered the art of letter-writing.
Two decades ago, the Republicans got a big jump on the Democrats in appealing to contributors through what they call ``direct mail'' fund-raising letters. The Democrats have yet to catch up.
In the past two decades, the Republicans have worked to perfect a direct-mail system that secures not only contributors but, eventually, voters. It's time-consuming and expensive - many people who receive letters simply toss them in the trash - and it involves trading and purchasing lists of names from like-minded organizations.
A party can spend $15 to get a $10 check. But fund-raisers view it as an investment.
``You may ask why in the world would you mail if you know you're going to lose money,'' said one Democratic fund-raiser. ``The reason is, once you have identified a donor who will write you a check once, they will write you a check again and again and again.''
The GOP has mastered a process with which Democrats still are struggling, said Denny Hatch, who publishes a magazine and a newsletter about direct mail.
``I see probably four times as many mailings from Republicans to small donors,'' he said. Democrats, Hatch said, ``don't mail much, and they don't have the sophistication that the Republicans have.''
It's also possible that Republicans have honed a better fund-raising message.
``Republican mail tends to be very negative and primarily about liberal Democrats,'' said Hal Malchow, who raised money through direct mail for the DNC last year. ``And while there are certainly Republican villains used in Democratic mail, this same style is less successful in Democratic mail. Our mail has to be a little more positive, more upbeat, to be successful. Why that is I don't know.''
LENGTH: Medium: 91 lines KEYWORDS: POLITICSby CNB