It hardly comes as a surprise to me that the last few years have been less than strong for fundraising. In fact, the recession brought about the first decrease in total giving in over 20 years. This is hardly news to anyone who works in healthcare, education, or social services, so I was surprised to learn that political campaigning actually earns far more than actual pre-recession philanthropy numbers.. Despite the huge fundraising challenges of this current economic climate, candidates for Congress and state houses have somehow topped past fundraising, and the numbers dwarf those of previous midterm election cycles.
As we discussed in class, election years without a president on the ballot suffer from lower voter turnout and general disinterest from much of the population. So why, then, has 2010 been such a banner year for campaign fundraising?
There are many factors that determine the effectiveness of every fundraising effort. It is my understanding that political fundraising has a unique responsibility to its beneficiaries since its returns have such long-term implications. This past election has been the most expensive midterm in history with fundraising efforts already beginning for the 2012 campaign, and it seems that this growth trend will only continue. Also, as an employee in the philanthropy industry, I also cannot help but wonder if these contributions will actually benefit the long-term growth of our country through the support of the very same health care, education, and social services that need successful fundraising far more than politicians do.
Shikha Dalal
There are several reasons for such an increase in spending this election cycle. First, there was the landmark Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision that gutted aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign act as well as allowed for unlimited spending by corporations. Prior to the ruling corporations were capped on their spending but after the ruling the cap was lifted as a violation of First Amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteMy very biased opinion feels that opening up this kind of spending will have a negative impact on health care, education and social services. We already saw how health care reform was watered down through industry lobbying, and areas such as education and social services do have have nearly the capital on hand to pay for lobbying as do corporations pushing their very narrow business interests. Each congressional session only has so much time and what issues are they more likely to push for, something that benefits industries that pay for their campaigns or social goods? My cynicism says it will be be narrow business interests.