[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
The Water Cooler Title: Top RNC Aide Quits, Blasts Michael Steele November 16, 2010 01:06 PM EST Republican National Committee political director Gentry Collins resigned from his post Tuesday morning with a stinging indictment of Chairman Michael Steele’s two-year tenure at the committee. In a four-page letter to Steele and the RNC’s executive committee obtained by POLITICO, Collins lays out inside details, previously only whispered, about the disorganization that plagues the party. He asserts that the RNC’s financial shortcomings limited GOP gains this year and reveals that the committee is deeply in debt entering the 2012 presidential election cycle. “In the previous two non-presidential cycles, the RNC carried over $4.8 million and $3.1 million respectively in cash reserve balances into the presidential cycles,” Collins writes, underlining his words for emphasis. “In stark contrast, we enter the 2012 presidential cycle with 100% of the RNC’s $15 million in lines of credit tapped out, and unpaid bills likely to add millions to that debt.” The short version of the RNC's 2010 troubles as described by Collins: The committee couldn’t afford to run an independent expenditure ad campaign on behalf of their candidates, didn’t fund a paid voter turnout operation for Senate and gubernatorial races, left its vaunted 72-Hour turnout program effectively unfunded, offered only a fraction of the direct-to-candidate financial contributions they made four years ago and dramatically scaled back its support of state parties. Steele has not indicated whether he will seek another term at the helm of the committee and an array of Republicans are already maneuvering to ensure that he does not win re-election in the event he runs. The depth of the party’s problems his political director reveals is likely to make it considerably more difficult for the embattled chairman if he does pursue a second term. That’s in part because Collins is not one of the committee’s persistent Steele critics but a respected operative and senior staffer inside the RNC building who was given authority over the $15 million line of credit the party took out this fall. In addition to the normal duties of his job, Collins spent much of the summer and fall quietly travelling the country and meeting with major donors in an effort to boost the party’s lackluster fundraising. It was a highly unusual task for a political director and, coupled with his primary job responsibilities, effectively made the Iowa native the operational head of the party. The letter is even more damaging because the aide doesn’t just lay out a bill of particulars about the troubled committee but specifically rebuts the pushback deployed by Steele to defend his tenure. Alluding to the chairman’s oft-cited explanation about the RNC’s financial difficulties this year, for example, Collins writes that the party’s “low cash-on-hand figures are not simply the result of early spending or transfers to state parties.” “While the RNC spent $11 million more in 2009 than in 2005 to secure important off-year victories in New Jersey, Virginia and Pennsylvania, that accounts for only one-quarter of the $43.6 million shortfall from the last non-presidential cycle,” he notes. “And while we did make large in-kind contributions of phones and equipment to state parties, more than 85% of that equipment was left over from 2008 – not acquired in the 2010 cycle.” Collins’ parting blast is also damning simply by virtue of the sheer volume of data the aide reveals and the degree of precision he uses to paint a picture of a dysfunctional RNC. “For the 2010 election year itself, RNC cash transfers to state parties for political purposes were just $13.1 million—less than a quarter of the $56.7 million cash transfers to state parties in 2006 for political purposes,” Collins writes. “And in 2010, the RNC went $15 million into debt to fund these programs.” He makes the case that the party’s lack of money directly resulted in missed opportunities in an otherwise stellar year for the GOP. Collins cites a study that he says found that the GOP could have won the Washington and Colorado Senate races with a better field operation and says that he’d chalk up narrow gubernatorial losses in Connecticut, Minnesota and Vermont to the same lack of funds for a ground game. The veteran Republican operative also tallies 21 House contests in every corner of the country that he asserts “could have been competitive if not for lack of funds.” In some of the states where the GOP picked up House seats, Collins notes it was partly because of outside help the party got for field funding. “The [Republican Governors Association] spent $18 million on GOTV-related expenses in 18 gubernatorial states,” he writes. “$13.2 million of those dollars went directly to state parties—more than the RNC transferred to state parties for political spending in all 50 states. More than half our US House pick-ups (31 of 60) and five of our most crucial holds were won in those 18 states.” And in the case of the two missed Senate opportunities, Washington state didn’t have a governor’s race and the RGA didn’t play in the Colorado gubernatorial contest. Collins lays the party’s fundraising shortfall squarely at the feet of Steele. “In the last two non-presidential cycles of 2002 and 2006, the RNC raised $284 million and $243 million respectively,” he writes, without noting Republicans held the White House in those two campaigns. “So far this cycle, the RNC has reported raising just $170 million. Less than $18 million (10.53%) of that total came from contributions of $1,000 or more, collected from a mere 5,379 donors. This is a fraction of either the previous cycles.” Of the $170 million raised to date, Collins points out that much of it came from low-dollar donors giving online and in the mail, suggesting Steele can’t claim credit for it. “These contributions do not result from personal solicitation by the Chairman but, like other macro-political trends, are reflective of the anti-Obama/Pelosi/Reid wave that drove energy and intensity to historic highs this cycle,” Collins writes. And without the major donors giving to the party, the cost of fundraising overhead soared. “Historical fundraising costs have been less that 50 cents per dollar raised: Estimates for cost-of-funds this cycle were much higher, and some estimate that they were closer to 70 cents on the dollar,” the aide writes, underlining his words. But the problem, Collins adds, wasn’t just a lack of money to state parties and candidates – it was also a lack of communication. Of the 72-Hour Program, devised by President George W. Bush’s political team, Collins recalls that the states didn’t even know that the turnout effort had been shelved until days before it was to begin this year. “States were not notified of RNC Chief of Staff Mike Leavitt’s order that no 72-hour funding would be made available to them until October 22, 2010 – just one week before the 72-hour window opened,” he writes. Collins concludes his letter to Steele and the 11 members that comprise the party’s executive committee by noting that the party must regain its financial footing heading into 2012 to help underwrite a presidential campaign, pay for a presidential convention, costs associated with redistricting and all the House, Senate and gubernatorial races that will be held. “These are huge opportunities requiring massive obligations,” he writes. “And this Committee can meet them. But to meet them, we must dig out from huge debts, be focused and disciplined about spending wisely, only spend to win elections, and adopt a laser-like focus on the hard work of reviving our major donor fundraising network.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#1. To: all (#0)
Sarah Palin would make an excellent RNC Chairperson.
That's right. Purge those fucking niggers out the tea party. I've never known one to sip tea anyhow.
Wow. There is no reason for that kind of remark, Brian S. You can post what you want, obviously. But that remark is simply disgusting.
#4. To: Badeye (#3)
Just trying to see how it feels operating on 'your level'... I'm not sure how you can stand yourself but it certainly is uncomfortable.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|