Barack Obama’s $52 million haul for the month of June is impressive – more impressive than some of us wags figured it would be. Then again, it’s not as impressive as the $100 million The Hill ludicrously speculated his Hopeness would rake in. But what does it all mean? First, let’s get the boring stuff out of the way. Because DNC Chair Howard Dean couldn’t competently arrange a one car funeral, the DNC won’t be able to give its presidential candidate any significant financial help. The RNC, however, can provide John McCain a major helping hand. For comparison purposes, both campaigns have lumped their respective national party’s assistance into their cash on hand assessments. Even though he outraised McCain by 250% in June, Obama has only $72 million available while McCain has $95. Given the profligate way the Obama campaign operates, it naturally has a much higher burn rate so McCain’s real advantage is even larger. Now, forget everything you just read because it doesn’t matter. Regardless of how much each campaign raises and spends, the amount they get in free media (positive and negative) will dwarf their own expenditures. Think of it this way – how much would it cost for the Obama campaign to place itself on each network newscast for five minutes every night next week? I ask rhetorically, but I figure it would be a lot. And yet the Obama campaign will be able to do precisely that because all of the network anchors are personally following his Surrender Tour to Iraq. And then there’s this: When a modern campaign has spent money and actually moved the ball, the amount of the expenditure hardly mattered. Having something worth saying that actually stuck in the electorate’s mind is what counted. Think back to 2004. The ad with the biggest impact came from the Swiftboat Veterans, not either of the campaigns. If memory serves, that was a $75,000 buy. The next biggest ad was probably the Bush campaign’s Kerry windsurfing spot. Both ads only had impact because they said something important, important enough that the free media amplified them in a dramatic way. And don’t talk to me about ground game. As George Soros proved in 2004, effective ground games can’t be bought. They have to be the product of general enthusiasm for the candidate. Mike Huckabee’s ground game in Iowa was a game-changer, and it wasn’t because of money. When Barack Obama opted out of public financing, I thought it was a no-brainer. The typical voter doesn’t care about campaign financing as an issue (showing most excellent judgment, I must say), and why would Obama fritter away a natural advantage for something that only Russ Feingold cares about? But now I’m not so sure. Because of what Obama considers his financial needs, he’ll have to spend a lot of time over the next few months raising money. (Gotta keep that campaign bus flush with flat screen TV’s!) This is time that he could better spend trying to get clingy, bitter Swing State voters to swoon.
