Here's the latest look at the money chase for the House and Senate party caucuses.
Last month, the House Dems led the House GOP by a margin of $146k - and were extending their lead by $2000/day (over the previous 90 days.) This month, the House Dems lead by $208k - and are extending their lead by 1900/day.
Last month, the Senate Dems led the Senate GOP by a margin of $97k- and were extending their lead by only $90/day. This month, the Senate Dems lead by $120k - and are extending their lead by $500/day (and $1500/day over the last 30 days.)
Here's the box scores and the charts for the four campaign committees.
|Senate Dems||Senate GOP||House Dems||House GOP|
|2007 starting balance||$47,883||$30,321||$104,542||$79,910|
|daily pace (last 90)||$1,447||$945||$3,276||$1,343|
|daily pace (last 30)||$2,836||$1,304||$3,225||$1,267|
Note: The official names of the committees here are Senate Democratic Leadership Fund, The Leadership Fund (Senate GOP), Future PAC (House Dems), and Promote Oregon Leadership PAC (House GOP). These numbers do not include any dollars raised by individual candidates.
Technical notes on the jump...
We retrieved this data from ORESTAR on February 1, 2008. Because campaigns can choose to delay their reporting up to 30 days, some recent data isn't available yet. The "daily pace" is based on the last 30 or 90 days for which we do have data. Our chart starts in July 2007 because most campaigns didn't raise money during the legislative session. The "average contribution" is based on actual cash contributions since January 1, 2007 - while the "current total" includes in-kind contributions, sold items, interest income, and the starting balance. Also, some campaigns lump together under-$100 contributions into a single line item - so the number of contributions may be slightly understated and the average contribution slightly overstated. In order to measure campaign strength, these numbers include the initial cash-on-hand on January 1, 2007 plus all funds raised since then.
Why not look at cash-on-hand? Because it doesn't lend itself to an apples-to-apples view. The goal is to provide a snapshot view that compares the financial strength of the statewide campaigns and legislative caucuses. Does a low cash-on-hand mean that a campaign is failing to raise money? Or does it mean that they're spending money on big-ticket items like polling, direct mail, and television? We assume that campaigns spend money in whatever way they think is most strategically smart. So, looking at the total funds raised since January 1, 2007 (plus the opening balance that day) is the best snapshot of overall financial strength.