The Politico today covers the decision by the NRCC to pull funding from Congressional races for good, conservative challengers so they can prop up the campaigns of flailing Republicans.

Under normal circumstances, I would expect the NRCC to behave this way. They are, after all, a campaign organization run by friends and colleagues of those currently serving. They will protect their own first, and build our numbers second.

What makes me uneasy with that now, is the specific names the Politico mentions.

GOP Reps. John B. Shadegg of Arizona, Lee Terry of Nebraska, Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina and Dan Lungren of California are all fighting for their political lives, a reversal of fortunes that has caught even the most astute campaign observers by surprise.

Frankly, it hasn’t caught me by surprise. All of those listed voted for the $700 billion – or is it $850 billion or $1.5 trillion, I guess it depends on whose scoring it – boondoggle foisted upon the taxpayers. These guys are solidly Republican living in solidly Republican districts, and they’re suddenly at risk of losing their seats just two short weeks after pissing on the taxpayer? Hrrrrmmmm… I wonder why.

What should stand out in particular are the names Shadegg and Terry. They’re among the sellouts who switched from No votes to Yes votes. Apparently they guessed wrong. That vote for political expediency may cost real conservatives – like Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White, perhaps the best candidate we have running this cycle – a seat. It may guarantee that the one chance we have to hold a seat – any seat – in NM is lost.

It is unfortunate that the NRCC feels it’s better to protect weak Republicans than to elect strong ones.

Well I won’t be supporting the NRCC until we see a new Chairman – one who is willing to support good candidates, not just good friends.

Embroidered with the official logo of the RNC, Sam is decked out in red, white and blue and is sure to be the hit of your July Fourth party.

Well sure he is. Because my friends are such drooling, Neanderthal simpletons that they’re overly amused by a cheap piece of Burmese fluff. You should have seen how crazy they went when I waved a lit match in front of them. It was like the beginning scene of 2001 with the monkeys going spastic over the giant chocolate bar.

Come on, seriously. The gang at the RNC must be embarrassed to send these out. This is truly one of those “just hold your nose and do what the finance people ask” messages.

I find it hard to believe that the response to these things is staggeringly successful, but they must be. Otherwise why would an institution so crazed with appearance and pomp trot this stupid thing out for every major and minor holiday. After all, there was Max, Maxine, and Patrick. Now Sam joins the line up.

I guess it escaped the attention of the RNC that the most famous Maxine in DC is Maxine Waters. The two most famous Patricks are Kennedy and Leahy. The most famous Max is Baucus.

To be fair, moderately famous Sams include Republican Rep. Johnson from Texas, Republican Rep Graves from Missouri, and GOP Senator Brownback. However, the best known Sams in DC history were likely Rayburn and Nunn – both Dems.

Honestly, can’t the RNC do better to reward participation than hand out stuffed bears named after Democrats? Why not give away an elephants named Newt, Goldwater, or Ronald? There would be no mistaking that those were named after GOP icons.

Granted he’ll have to spend an awful lot of it to beat Hillary. He’s currently out raising her almost two to one. He’ll blow through a lot of cash between now and the nomination, but anything that’s left (assuming he eschews the general election funding provided by the FEC) can go straight to his general election account. If he continues raising $30 million or more per month, he could conceivably end up up more in the bank to transfer than McCain will get from the FEC funds.

What should really make McCain nervous, though, is the situation at the FEC and the fact that he may not get those funds. The FEC is currently missing commissioners and cannot count a quorum. Without a quorum present, the FEC cannot approve the disbursement of those Presidential funds to the McCain camp.

The Senate won’t recess because they do not want Bush to make recess appointments. The Republicans and Democrats have relatively inflexible positions on the current crop of appointments, and don’t appear likely to blink. With that stalemate in place, and no reason for the Democratic majority to overturn it, McCain could well enter the fall campaign completely unarmed.

McCain’s team is currently raising about $12 million per month, but blowing through it just as fast. If they’re not banking any dough, it is possible the campaign will enter September without any money at all. Now, the GOP could take great offense to the Senate Dems using procedural maneuvers to keep their candidate broke and rally in large numbers to show J-Mac the money love. If that’s going to happen, though, it needs to start soon.

The Bush team in 2004 considered skipping the general fund and raising money, but they determined the costs would simply be too great. To raise the $75 million they’d be giving up, they would actually need to raise about $150 million – due largely to the high overhead of the Ranger/Pioneer model of fundraising.

Obama’s model has a much lower overhead. It’s possible he could raise vast sums of money on a small dollar model. He’ll have a lot more ready cash for a much smaller investment of time.

McCain’s team needs to get on the stick and go open-source. They should be e-mailing their list with the facts I have just laid out, and urging every single Republican to give to McCain. They could even be honest and upfront about it. Here’s a sample of the e-mail I would send.

While we may not have seen eye to eye on issues in the past, I hope I can count on you now. We, as a party, face an incredible challenge. In just 7 months, I will face the best funded Democrat to run for President in generations. As the liberals are stuffing the campaign coffers of my opponent, their allies in the US Senate are working to deny you a candidate.

As the Senate holds up confirmation of commissioners to the FEC, I am awaiting approval of the funds that will carry our party’s message in the fall. Roughly $80 million dollars is riding on a high stakes game of chicken. The Democrats want us to back down. They want to hold my campaign hostage and prevent the disbursement of the money we need for the election in an effort to deliver a defeat to the President.

Whether you agree with me, and whether you support President Bush and his policies, we must unite as a party, and beat the Democrats at their own game. How? We must ask every single Republican to make a donation of just $5 to this campaign.

If every single Republican who voted for President Bush in 2004 gave $5, we could unite as a party, raise more than $300 million dollars, and fund our election without the FEC.

Take the power out of the Democrats hands. Show them the people of this great nation will not allow them to deny half of us our candidate and our vote. Show them that like any family we may have our internal squabbles, but we will not hesitate to come together against someone who threatens us.

Please, ask every Republican you know to give $5. If you can give more, or they can give more, please ask them to do so. We

That’s it. Begin a fundraising drive to combat the situation you are in. Beat Obama at the small dollar giving and use the fact that the Democrats are purposefully blocking the FEC appointments in an effort to screw you against them.

If they don’t do something, and keep spending money under the theory that the FEC situation will be resolved before August, they run the real risk that they go into the general out gunned to the tune of $150 million or more.

Turk, a competitor of All’s in the e-politics world, took the attack up several notches with a post headlined “I’ve Lost What Little Respect For David All I Had Left.”
“David is, by all accounts, a master of self-promotion,” Turk wrote. “It’s entirely possible that he made a conscious choice to take the contrarian position solely to further his agenda of making David everything that David can be. … I think David is calculating and has come to the conclusion that taking these positions gets him noticed. I think that’s why he took his post against RedState and circulated it to the media (as Erick alleges).”

When All responded, Turk pounced again. Among other things, he criticized All for not having embraced efforts to improve the RightRoots online fundraising site that failed miserably last year and for instead building a competing site, Slatecard.

I honestly don’t know where to begin on this one. Let’s start with the softballs and bat some out of the park, then we can work on those wild pitches.

First, David is anything but “a competitor … in the e-politics world.” The fact is, I have a day job with a major trade association. I do some consulting work on the side, but I do it for people who call me. I’m not out chasing business like the eQuivalent of an ambulance chaser. David’s managed Internet operations for a couple of Congressmen with name ID in the teens. That’s hardly what I would consider a wealth of experience. When he does something… anything… that makes a difference in an actual election, come talk to me…

Second, let’s tackle the accusation that RightRoots was a “failure”. I’m not sure what Danny’s resume includes, but here’s a basic fact that may have escaped him in his climb to the middle. Challenger and open seat races are often losers. Rightroots picked 21 seats running against entrenched Democrats or for open seats. The slate went 2 for 19. That’s almost 10% for those of you keeping score.

If you’re judging anyone’s “success” as a function of winning in 2006, you’re going to be declaring a lot of people losers. How many seats did we lose last year? How many challengers got elected? How many sitting Democrats lost? Putting that at the feet of RightRoots is just stupid. Saying RightRoots was a failure because the GOP got its ass kicked up and down the ballot plays into the hands of all those who claim the Internet’s not important because it’s never made the difference. Ignoring clear success that occurs within an environment of failure misses the forest and the trees.

Now looking at RightRoots as a function of how much was raised is a whole different story. Through the help of a group of top bloggers, the site (which was a pilot project anyway) raised $300,000 in 90 days. That exceeds what ActBlue raised in its first 90 days and places RightRoots ahead of well established and well connected PACs in this town that raised and spent far less.

My point about David was he, knowing that an effort was underway and knowing we had established a name in the field, chose not to help with that, and instead chose to launch a competitor because he could put his name on it, and take credit for it. Don’t believe that? Look at his Facebook page and see who he lists as his employer.

Work Info

Employer:	Slatecard.com PAC
Position:	Executive Director
Time Period:	October 2007 – Present
Location:	Alexandria, VA
Description:	Slatecard (http://slatecard.com) is a utility to support and enhance Republican activism.

As I said in both of my posts, I believe David is self-serving, and puts himself above the cause. But, as I also said, if that’s what he feels he needs to do to get ahead, that’s his prerogative. I don’t respect it. I’ve worked for too many people in politics who got ahead (and got their candidates elected) by playing the game with integrity and a commitment to the cause.

I also feel it’s unfortunate that Danny felt the need to selectively represent my posts and completely ignored the lengthy discussion of why I feel, on the merits of his argument about Ron Paul, David All is way of the mark. I sent Danny the following note after I saw his post. I’ll let you know if I hear anything back.

I’m surprised at your post. I’m not sure if you didn’t read my posts completely, or if you just chose to selectively represent them. In my first post, I specifically stated that I had no problem with David being a rabid self-promoter. I don’t respect it, but if that’s more important to him than the cause, so be it.

I repeated that sentiment in the second post, and specifically stated that if that’s his business model, that’s fine. I then spent considerable time exploring exactly why he’s dead wrong about Paul or his supporters falling into the fold should he lose. You failed to mention that as well.

Finally, RightRoots, with no budget, and set up as a pilot project to test whether we could actually raise funds effectively on an ActBlue model, raised 300,000 in 90 days. That number greatly exceeds what ActBlue was able to do in their first 90 days (which also fell directly before the election). I’m not sure how that qualifies as “failing miserably”, but if generating more contributions than established PACs that have been raising money for years is failing, i’m not sure I understand your barometer for success.

If the national environment does improve somewhat, and the nominee starts close to slightly behind, we won’t have the steady demoralizing drumbeat we had in 2006. Rank-and-file Republicans will be too focused on beating up Hillary. Democrats in red districts could be cross-pressured.

No Bush to Kick Around Anymore: 2006 was the last year in which a Democrat could effectively run against Bush. It is not possible to do more political damage to Bush. People know he’s leaving.

Is this a case for 2008 as a Republican year? Not yet. But the Democrats’ best-case scenario is probably a muted change election like 2000 or 1976.

The Democrats have – without a doubt – gotten just about all the mileage out of Bush that they can get. They’re in charge now, and the public knows it. Whether the public opinion polls that show Americans with a near-record low approval for Congress are due to their unwillingness to fulfill any of what they ran on, or whether it is simply a distaste for all things political is unclear. What is apparent, though, is a sentiment that Congress, as a whole, is dysfunctional.

It used to be that you could pretty much rely on voters to believe, “My Congressman is ok, but the rest of them are crooks.” That doesn’t seem to hold anymore. I haven’t seen that question asked in some time, but I suspect more and more people would believe there guy is crooked, too.

So what does 2008 look like? I think the likelihood is an anti-incumbent wave. Not anti-GOP and not anti-Dem. I also think that holds true regardless of who the candidates at the top of the ticket are. The fact is, there just aren’t that many people left who vote a straight slate anymore.

My guess is a lot of the internal polling numbers have made that case for a fair number of GOPers who are weighing their re-election chances. I don’t believe it is a coincidence that a slew of Members who likely just benchmarked their races are saying, “Umm… Maybe not.”

Ok, so if that’s true, why aren’t Democrats doing the same thing? Why aren’t we seeing more retirements? Well, to Patrick’s point, I think they’re misreading the cards. I think they’re assuming that this is a down year for Republicans, and the retirements have them giddy with the possibility of big numbers in 2009.

I have bad news and worse news. The bad news is you have two days to live. The worse news is I was supposed to tell you yesterday.

So let’s assume Patrick and I are right, and we are actually looking at an election that we could, under normal circumstances, capitalize on. What’s the worse news?

The worse news is two-fold. First, we have a boatload of seats to protect. Going into the 2008 elections, we have to protect 2/3 of the seats up for election. The house, with a raft of retirements comes a lot of open seats. Open seats are normally harder to keep than incumbent seats, unless the incumbents are particularly disliked. Second, we have a serious problem with our base.

Trouble with your droids?

It’s no secret that the GOP base is unhappy. It’s no secret that they’re not engaging. It’s no secret that a lot of people are unhappy with our slate of candidates for President. It’s also no secret that we have a significant fundraising problem.

Does all of that add up to the Perfect Storm? Will it all conspire to steal what should, under normal circumstances, be an anti-incumbent (and therefore, favorable for the minority party) election? It may well. This is where I don’t share Patrick’s muted optimism. I think he’s right that the tealeaves are more favorable for us than a lot of people are acknowledging, but I think our hurdles are great, and I’m not sure that we’re fast or limber enough to clear them.

We’re also having trouble selling our message. Much has also been said about the fact that we’re trying to move a bad message in a difficult environment. We’re trying to talk about our commitment to fiscal responsibility after spending 7 years giving away the store. We’re trying to talk about our commitment to values wile defending Members of Congress who stand accused of all manner of crimes.

I get it. It’s a tough sell.

It is not made easier by the apparatus. There is an inherent flaw in the way we structure and run our campaigns. I’ve been thinking about this for a while now, and have come to the conclusion that we need a fundamentally different paradigm for building and managing our campaigns.

Run It Like A Business

I once heard a joke that we need a president that will run the government like a business – someone who will burn it down and collect the insurance.

Seriously, though, there is nothing wrong with applying the lessons of business to the business of politics. There is much we can learn from the business community and we need to apply some of the basics to our campaigns. Following are five simple changes we could make that I believe would yield great gains.

1. Break The Stool – Typically the three legs of the political campaign stool are Communications, Finance, and Political – message, money and mobilization. Increasingly, there is a fourth leg called “Strategy” that deals with polling and paid media. The problem for most campaigns is there is considerable overlap in some of these things, and there can be considerable friction – especially given the emergence of an entirely new and different form of media – one much more interactive than mail, phones, and the TV.

   The campaigns structure itself is a hindrance to the campaign process, yet nobody tinkers with it because, “That’s how it has always been done.”In a business environment, clinging to outmoded models can be the last nail in your coffin. Campaigns should not cling to an outdated org chart simply because it’s been in use for decades.

2. Divorce media relations from marketing – Most companies treat marketing and media relations as two separate functions. Talking to the media and talking to your customers are two different animals. Campaigns, however, generally take as gospel the direction of the Communications Director.

The fact is, what moves the head of the political bureau at the New York Times is probably not going to move many voters. Conversely, the type of content that makes compelling direct mail, or internet video, or television advertising, is often going to be mocked by the political media elite.By separating those two functions completely (I say completely because often the paid media are not directly managed by Comms) you’ll end up with better material.

3. Marketing 101 – Now that you have Communications talking exclusively to the press (which is what they do best), you’re free to market your product. Have you ever noticed that most of the really good commercials you remember weren’t stodgy and boring? It doesn’t matter what the product is, if the ad is uninspired, nobody will remember the product.

Here’s an example. A few years ago, a major car manufacturer made an ad that featured a ball bearing rolling along the window channels and the body lines of their car. Here’s the challenge for you: Name the car! Can’t do it? Name the company! Can’t do that either, can you?

The fact is, people like to make boring commercials in the misguided belief that they’re reinforcing some image attribute of “serious” or “professional” or “trustworthy”. It’s all BS. Those attributes, applied to marketing, are the equivalent of “boring”, “stiff”, and “uninteresting”.

You have 30-60 seconds to convey something. Do you really want to follow the Al Gore model and make the one word that people use to describe your candidate be “wooden”. Do you want people to think you’re boring simply because you have some hyper-inflated respect for the office your guy is seeking?

In 2004, the most memorable TV ad that ran in the Presidential contest was also the goofiest. It had a serious message, but it presented it in a fun and engaging way. It was memorable and compelling. There’s nothing wrong with using odd to sell a serious idea.

One of my favorite ongoing ad campaigns was the Burger King chicken sandwiches. Whether it was the Subservient Chicken or the punk band Coq Roq, BK got noticed for their advertising. They pulled the ads after some outcry that “Coq Roq” was offensive, but the subsequent attention paid to them pulling the ads was worth a ton of free publicity – it was probably worth more than the buy would have been.

There is nothing wrong with getting people’s attention. If you are a political party, do whatever you can to frame yourself. stick to the message, but don’t be afraid to present it in a unique wrapper. If you’re a campaign, the line is a little trickier to walk, but you can have fun, and make people remember you at the same time.

A friend showed me a direct mail piece she received from a candidate and held onto as an example of exactly this point. The candidate’s tagline on his mail said simply, “Short. Bald. Honest.” It was perhaps the greatest tagline ever on political mail. People will remember it, and they’ll have positive thoughts about the candidate – forgiving almost all but the most extreme positions.

Your paid media, the Internet, and direct mail should all be run like a marketing department. Everything should stand out.

The takeaway from all of this is try something new. Be brave. Get noticed.

4. The Relationship Between Sales and Marketing – I took the direct mail function out of Political because ideally, the political guys should be all about talking to the voters. I don’t consider direct mail to be a form of talking to voters. It’s a way of priming the pump for your political guys to make the call, or knock on the door and deliver that sale. If your paid media (including the net) are your marketing efforts, then your political guys are your sales team. Strategy and Political should overlap at the database. Think of this as your Customer Relationship Management (CRM) package. Strategy fills it with leads through their marketing efforts, but it’s up to Political to interact with the customer.

That’s also true online. I’d like to see a candidate set up their “sign up” form with questions about interests that actually told you what the subscriber wanted. Options to “Get news and information” would be separate with “Help contact voters by mail or phone”. The people that chose the latter should get a personal call from the organizer at the local level to involve them in volunteering. The people that chose the first are clearly more interested in simply staying in touch. Campaigns get too specific with the asks on sign up forms and end up missing the bigger picture (there are people who don’t want to do other activities, and will view repeated requests to do so as a pain).

So now that you have a separate sales force, they are all about closing the deal. They can do that through channel partners (coalitions), but their goal should be to talk to every single voter. We tend to talk about microtargeting and the ability to move voters with carefully crafted messages that appeal to my interests. To some extent, that probably works. I have bought a number of cars in my life and did so very recently. The ads made me lean to a particular car, and I went to look at them, but ultimately chose a different model because it better suited my needs, and the salesman demonstrated that.

We can run all the ads that we want touting a candidate’s position, but the fact is, somebody in person is going to close the deal. It won’t be the ad that makes the sale, it will be a friend or a family member. It might be a neighbor going door to door that convinces them to buy. You better hope that your CRM system can tell you where those leads are, but you better pray it’s your salesman – and not the other guy’s – that convinces them to buy.

5. Investor Relations and Effective Management - Campaigns cost a lot. Donors, for lack of a better explanation, are your shareholders. The return on their investment is you winning. They want to know that you used their dough to build the best business you can. If you’re still working from a model that puts all of your message in the hands of the press guys; treats your internet shop as a place to put press releases; puts your sales guys in charge of lead generation; makes marketing a minor player relegated only to radio and TV ads; and spends money on a campaign with less than effective coordination, you are doing a disservice to your shareholders.

Campaigns really need to think about the way they manage operations and really ask themselves if the way it was done 40 years ago is really the way it should be done today. In business, the answer to that question is a resounding no. If your business remained unchanged for 40 years while others around you experimented with other approaches, there is a pretty good probability that you would end up with a declining share of the market. That’s exactly what’s happening to the GOP today.

The Democrats have been adapting their model. Rather than using the same direct mail copy that they used in the 1970s, they have discovered a desire for people to connect. They realized that their stakeholders want to believe in the cause. They made their message one of inclusion.

If you look at GOP direct mail, it’s all exactly the same. “Candidate X is a dirty liberal extremist and the liberal elite extremists (possibly in San Francisco, maybe in New York, certainly in DC) want him to win. Fight the liberals and give us your money.” It says nothing other than liberal.

Look at recent Democrat messages, however, and you see a company that it selling itself to the people. It will generally say:

We don’t believe in the direction the Republicans are going, we want to go in a different direction, to do that we need to win elections. To win elections, we need to hire field organizers, and print yard signs, and buy billboards, and run TV ads. Your contributions will put Joe Blow on the ground in (insert state) and he’ll be able to contact 285 voters per day between now and the election. If you give us 2X contributions, we’ll also be able to put four volunteers in the field next to Joe and give them coffee and donuts to keep them happy.

When I first started seeing these messages a couple of years ago, I thought they were ridiculous. I believed it was way too much inside baseball and would be ignored by people.

I was wrong.

Telling people where their money is going and how it will be used (even if it’s nonsense) is a sales tactic. They found their sales methods were flawed and tried something new. It worked. This should be seen as a lesson. We, too, need to adapt if we’re going to survive. We need to change our fundamentals – our approach to running our business.

There’s a lot of buzz in GOP internet circles about the glaring omission from Romney’s site. As we approach the end of the fundraising quarter, we all expected the return of mini-Mitt, the annoying and intrusive pitchman for the Romney campaign’s June finance crush.

With no mini-Mitt to talk about, I thought I’d look at what the campaigns are doing to grab those last minute dollars. There’s a lot going on, and it’s interesting to track the different tactics.

The House Party

In lieu of mini-Mitt, the Romney guys have rolled out a snazzy little splash page pimping the Rally for Romney (a clever rebranding of the standard “House Parties” tactic). Like Rudy’s House Party (scheduled for the 26th), the idea behind the Rally for Romney is to allow grassroots fundraisers to bundle checks and ship them off to the campaign before the end of the quarter.

House Parties are an effective method of raising money, but by comparison to traditional online tactics, I’m not sure they’re hugely profitable versus the labor. If your diligent at all about vetting the fundraisers your authorizing, you’ve got a lot of work to do. If your not, there is a good possibility your authorizing people with sketchy pasts to gather funds on your behalf.

I’m not sure that matters any more, however. Guilt by association used to be a significant reason for campaigns to watch their associates. If they’re raising small enough amounts, it may not matter.

The Celebrity Endorsement

McCain and Hillary are taking a slightly different tack. They have decided to roll out the celebrity e-mail. For Hillary the celeb in question shares a bed with her (at least occasionally), so I’m guessing it was no trouble to have Bill pen a missive.

McCain, however, decided to use the “Dancing with the Stars” definition of “star”, and rolled out an endorsement from former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach. Now, I’m not questioning the appeal of an octogenarian former football star, but I’d suggest someone with a bit more “name”. Couldn’t they find a current football player?

The celeb e-mail works, if the celeb in question is universally loved among your donors. Bill Clinton works because Democrats generally love him. Staubach is a questionable choice. I don’t know anyone but the most die hard Cowboy fan who will open their wallet simply because Roger asked.

The Viral Appeal

Obama is pushing a “matching funds” program that pairs supporters. If you give $25, some other philanthropist will match your funds. You can then exchange e-mail with them. I like the idea behind this, as it gives supporters a sense of community. Some might say it’s a bit goofy, but anything that makes people feel connected to the campaign empowers them to be a voice for the campaign.

The Give-Money-and-Win-Something Appeal

The Edwards camp is taking a page from the Obama playbook and offering a trip to meet up with Edwards for a handful of selected donors. His giveaway is a little different however. There’s no steak dinner at a fancy restaurant in store for the winner. Nope. The grand prize winners will be whisked off to N’awlins, Louisiana for a fun filled day of rebuilding Katrina damage.

I’m not knocking voluntourism. I think efforts to help the Big Easy rebuild are fantastic. I’m just not sure that helping John do a roof raising in the Ninth Ward is the type of tchotchke most people would be hoping for.

The Thompson finance team has a similar contest going, but it’s geography based. The town that brings in the most donations per capita by midnight on 9/30 gets a visit from Fred. It’s sort of a cross between Eventful and traditional fundraising.

There Can Be Only One

The downside to these efforts is the only people who will ever know if they’re successful are those in the respective campaigns. These aren’t likely to comprise the bulk of funds raised. The money rankings will come out in a week, and the winners and losers will be declared. Ultimately, the best online fundraising idea may belong to a candidate who doesn’t fare well overall.

Rest assured, though. In another 90 days, we’ll do it all again.

Rightroots is back and better than ever. The site was launched in beta yesterday and now lists every Republican running for Congress. The new site includes the option to build your own slate of candidates and promote them through your own blog.

There are a handful of people circling around this idea, but ABCPac and Rightroots were the first, and continue to be the best. And I’m not just saying that because I’m on the board.

Giuliani today reported $15 million raised (as previously reported) and $12 million on hand. That’s a substantial figure that could actually put him in first place in the money game. Romney’s people have said they’ll report more than $11 million, but we won’t know how much more until we see the report. In addition to his high COH amount, Giuliani reported very little debt (about $90k).

If McCain, who raised only $12.5, has a burn rate closer to Romney’s (48%) than Giuliani’s (32%), he will come out of the first quarter with a COH in the mid-single digits. That’s a bad place to be.

On another piece of news, the number of contributors to Rudy’s campaign is around 28,000. That’s only about 5,000 fewer than Romney, but those 5,000 raised $6 million more (an average of $1,200 per person). That gives you a further indication that much of Romney’s donor stable is tapped out and unable to give more. He had better hope that the Pioneer/Ranger model finds a LOT of new blood or his second quarter numbers are going to look pretty lackluster compared to the first.

Both Romney (with maxed out donors and a need for new blood) and McCain (with little money to carry him) face a tough time going into the lean fundraising months of summer. Summer is a hard time to raise money as donors are generally consumed with other things and less likely to engage.

UPDATE: After Mitt released a breakdown of his numbers today, I felt compelled to call him out on his “pure and simple” website fundraising. The complete post is available over at TechPresident.com.