|
 Now, in thousands of pages of campaign finance reports filed with
the Federal Election Commission Wednesday by Republican Jeb Bush and
other candidates, a first glimpse is emerging of just how much Super
PACs are beginning to reshape how candidates run and pay for their
campaigns.
So far in the 2016 race for the White House, the fundraising hauls
of Republican candidates' affiliated Super PACs have smashed the
totals brought in by individual candidate committees, and Bush leads
the field in both parties with a combined financial war chest of
more than $114 million.
Bush’s new strategy, campaign finance experts say, is the starkest
sign yet of the structural shift away from campaign committees,
which can only accept small donations, and toward Super PACs, which
have no limits.
The financial report for Bush’s 2016 campaign committee shows a
streamlined operation that has so far spent little compared with
candidates of the past during similar periods.
 Campaign finance experts say Bush’s lean campaign committee, in
which he spent dramatically less than traditional campaigns during
comparable periods for staff, infrastructure and other necessities,
is just the latest sign of how much he will need to rely on his
Right to Rise Super PAC to fund many of the workaday tasks aimed at
getting him elected.
Super PACs are a relatively new political phenomenon that have been
roiling the campaign landscape since the Supreme Court's 2010
Citizens United ruling, which gave wealthy donors, corporations and
labor unions the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on
campaign ads and other electioneering efforts.
Unlike traditional campaigns, which are regulated and can only
accept donations from individuals of up to $2,700, Super PACs can
collect unlimited sums. Because of that, campaign finance reformers
have lambasted the court's decision as one that has given too much
political influence to the privileged elite.
Most major candidates in the race now have a Super PAC affiliated
with their campaigns. While Super PACs are legally barred from
coordinating directly with campaigns, they are often staffed with
people who have worked for the candidates, and are intimate with the
campaigns’ inner workings.
Bush's favorite strategist, Mike Murphy, has migrated to working for
Bush's affiliated Super PAC instead of Bush's actual campaign
committee.
So far, Bush, who spent the first half of this year raising money
for the Super PAC while he was technically not a declared candidate,
is by far the dominant winner in the money race in an election that
is predicted to cost all candidates combined more than $5 billion.
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who announced her candidacy
in April 12, reported that her campaign committee has raised $47.5
million. The Super PAC associated with her campaign has raised only
$15.6 million.
Although Bush is the leading fundraiser, the latest opinion poll
among self-identified Republican voters shows he had dropped behind
Republican rival Donald Trump, the billionaire who has said he will
finance his own campaign.
Filings show that in the latest reporting period, Trump had lent his
campaign nearly $2 million.
[to top of second column] |
RESHAPING CAMPAIGNS
The financial reports for Bush’s campaign committee make clear how
much the innovations are beginning to change his campaign
infrastructure.
In traditional campaigns, the first financial filings usually show
millions of dollars of spending on payroll, postage, and mailings —
the bread-and-butter of campaigns. Bush’s first campaign committee
finance report, by contrast, shows virtually little of that in the
weeks leading up to, and after, his announcement.
The reports also show that Bush’s campaign committee is so far a
low-budget operation compared with those of the past.
In the last presidential election, the campaign committees of
President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney were in
robust form at a comparable stage, having staffed up and spent
freely, pouring nearly $17 million in the weeks leading up to and
after their campaign announcements on mailings, online advertising
and telemarketing.
Together, the two candidates spent more than $3.2 million on payroll
for staff and consultants alone. Obama declared his candidacy on
April,4, 2011; Romney announced June 2, 2011.
By contrast, Bush’s campaign, though official for a shorter amount
of time, still spent just a fraction of those amounts, a total of $3
million - with just $173,111 on payroll so far. He launched his
official White House bid on June 15.
MOVES TOWARD SUPER PACS
While Bush is innovating something of a new order in campaign
finance, the reports show that, so far, Democratic frontrunner
Clinton is sticking more to the traditional school, leveraging her
$47.5 million campaign finance haul in ways similar to campaigns of
the past, including spending millions on printed flyers, postage and
staff expenses.
Clinton also reimbursed dozens of individual supporters for the
food, drinks and other costs of holding fundraisers in their homes.
Of the $19 million she spent, her top three expenses were payroll,
marketing and taxes.
To be sure, there is time for Bush’s campaign committee to ramp up
spending as the election progresses. But campaign finance experts
say the sheer totals for his Super PAC indicate that this will be an
election unlike any other.
In response to a request for comment, the Bush campaign said in an
emailed statement: "Jeb Bush will run a robust and comprehensive
operation that will include all elements of successful political
campaign.”
The Clinton campaign did not respond to requests for comment.
(Additional reporting by Grant Smith; Editing by Ken Wills)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
