WHY ARE DEMOCRATS TAKING IN FAR MORE MONEY-- ESPECIALLY FROM SMALL DONORS-- THAN REPUBLICANS?

You probably noticed that contributions are coming in at a much faster rate for Democrats than for Republicans this year. In fact, according to today's still Murdoch-free Wall Street Journal Democrats have raised something like $100 million more than the party of fat cats, greed, selfishness, and systemic corruption. This has never happened in the lifetimes of most DWT readers.

With more than a year to go before the 2008 elections, Democratic candidates have raised $100 million more in campaign contributions than Republicans, putting them on track to win the money race for the White House and Congress for the first time since the government began detailed accounting of campaign fund raising three decades ago.

Democrats have taken the lead by exploiting widespread disapproval of President Bush and the Iraq war to develop a more robust online network of new, small donors, as well as to gain traction with deep-pocketed business contributors.

In fact, small donors are making all the difference, and that's the aspect emphasized in a perceptive look in today's L.A. Times entitled Small Donor Playing Bigger Role in Campaigns. Their subtitle is even more telling: "Presidential candidates collect record amounts in small sums. Just as valuable: the support those dollars and cents represent."

Since 2004 ActBlue has collected over $25,200,000 for Democratic candidates, much of it from small online donors. Ben Rahn, ActBlue's president told me that they expect to shoot right past $100,000,000 before the Nov. '08 election. Ben graduated from MIT; he doesn't pull numbers out of thin air. Our own Blue America page has already taken in over $51,000, entirely in small donations (average donation this year $62.47 and the mean donation is approximately $20).

Obama, of course, has been the biggest beneficiary of small contributors, "receiving nearly 30% of his $58.5 million in small increments. The $16.5 million he raised in amounts of $200 or less in the first half of the year is more than all the other Democrats combined raised in such small donations. Much of it comes via the Internet unsolicited."

The $46.4 million that all candidates have raised in small chunks is about four times as much as all candidates raised in small donations for the same period in the last two presidential campaigns.

Small donations hearten advocates of campaign finance regulation. They hope Internet fundraising will lessen the influence of high rollers. But of course, influential players bundle small change into larger checks.

Republican front-runner Rudolph W. Giuliani has received several such blocks of money. One came from H. Douglas Barclay and his New York-based law firm, Hiscock & Barclay.

Until recently, Barclay was ambassador to El Salvador. The nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics counted $216,000 in federal donations this decade from Barclay and his family to Republicans, including to President Bush.

Now, Barclay and his law firm are donating to Giuliani. In addition to large donations from some partners, the firm recently bundled about $3,900 in amounts of between $5 and $57 from other attorneys in the firm. Federal election law permits law firms and other partnerships to give money and attribute the donations to partners.

The specific donations were a surprise to some partners.

"It's news to me," Hiscock partner Lawrence Zimmerman said of his two donations of $48 each to Giuliani. "I would not have contributed to Mr. Giuliani's campaign. I am a dyed-in-wool Kennedy Democrat."

The Journal points to another interesting, and, for the recipients of high roller money (like Giuliani, Biden, Romney and Clinton), worrisome. "Only half of Mr. Obama's donors have hit the giving limit for the primaries; about a quarter have given him less than $200, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that analyzes campaign contributions. By contrast, about two-thirds of those contributing to the campaign of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have already hit their maximum; just 8% have given less than $200."

But this all isn't to say that the Democrats are going to swamp the Republicans in the area where Republicans always best thing (fundraising). The Senate Democrats are beating the Senate Republicans and the House Democrats are beating the House Republicans and the Democratic presidential candidates are beating the Republican presidential candidates, but, as the Journal is only too happy to point out, "it is still early in the campaign, and big business could well ramp up funding to Republicans, who have been its longtime allies. Moreover, a financial victory doesn't always guarantee electoral victory: Republicans lost control of the House and Senate last year despite outraising Democrats $1.2 billion to $1.1 billion. In fact, candidate and party fund raising is only part of the political balance sheet. Lightly regulated independent groups with wealthy backers can also shape political contests. During the 2004 campaign, advertising by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth damaged Democrat candidate John Kerry's reputation as a war hero."

I've noticed that for a Democratic congressional candidate in a purple district it generally takes only half of what a Republican spends to win the seat. Let me share some examples from last year. Carol Shea-Porter took on rubber stamp Republican incumbent Jeb Bradley in New Hampshire's 1st CD. He raised $1,111,590. She raised $360,380 and kicked his ass. Bush had won the district twice. In a slightly redder district, NY-19 (where Bush also won both times) rubber stamp Republican incumbent Sue Kelly spent $2,519,164 while victorious challenger John Hall spent $1,602,865. Slightly more red than NY-19 is NY-20 and there rubber stamp Republican incumbent John Sweeney spent $3,425,841, only to be beaten by Kirsten Gillibrand's $2,595,659. Even in a solidly red district like KS-02, far right incumbent Jim Ryun was beaten by Nancy Boyda, even though he spent $1,075,223 and she spent $676,738. Look at the heartbreaking race in NC-08, where just a couple hundred votes prevented a victory by Larry Kissell over rubber stamp incumbent Robin Hayes, despite Hayes having spent $2,475,169 while Kissell only spent $779,341. Same story in OH-02, where Mean Jean Schmidt spent $1,944,434 to beat Victoria Wulsin (who spent $1,0211,186) by a handful of votes in a solidly red district. Democrats need a lot less money than Republicans do because the basic Democratic message-- if it can be delivered-- resonates with voters. Republicans don't have a sensible message, just a need to brainwash people about fear and hatred-- and repetition is costly.

The Journal acknowledges the important role of Internet fundraising and the overwhelming the bottom-up orientation of Democrats have over the robotic, talking points repeating Republicans.

Democrats have also benefited because of their comparative strength with Internet activists. While Republican voters tend to gravitate toward traditional media like talk radio, Democratic voters with strong opinions are more likely to go online to read blogs. That, in turn, has led to an explosion in online giving to Democrats, who are building lists of thousands of small-dollar donors for a fraction of the cost of traditional direct mail.

Many Democrats give by clicking links to candidates on the Web site ActBlue, a clearinghouse for small donors. ActBlue has raised $5.6 million for Democratic House, Senate and presidential candidates, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a Web site that tracks donations. It was the single biggest source of contributions to the party's presidential candidates during the first six months of the year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In a report last week, the center said ActBlue donors gave more in aggregate than the total from employees of heavy corporate contributors like Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

That report last week is about outfits like our own Blue America page. Feel proud-- and if you can afford to make a donation today, let me recommend worthy progressive Democrats facing primaries from reactionaries and opportunists who can really use some help: Donna Edwards, Darcy Burner, John Laesch, Angie Paccione, and Victoria Wulsin.