Writing in Sunday's
Washington Post, Marc Ambinder observed, “Both parties have well-financed internal agitators who yank tight the chains of ideological discipline -- think of MoveOn.Org on the left and the Club for Growth on the right ... The Republican base is fracturing around fiscal probity, immigration and cultural issues.”
He's right. And it seems the Republican Party committees are actually working around-the-clock to expedite the process.
It has been much noted that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has spent millions of dollars against conservative Steve Laffey in Rhode Island.
But now, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has also decided to
intervene in a primary election. In Arizona, they are spending thousands of dollars to defeat conservative former State Representative Randy Graf.
According to
his website, Graf has received the endorsements of Concerned Women PAC, the political action committee of Concerned Women for America, and Arizona Right to Life PAC.
If conservatives are upset by the NRSC's involvement in Rhode Island, they should be enraged by this. The NRSC can at least claim they are defending an incumbent (Sen. Lincoln Chafee). But the NRCC is meddling in an open primary.
Unless there is something damning about Graf that we don't know about, it’s hard to imagine that conservative donors will be happy with this move.
Which brings me to my real point …
Campaign finance reform, as well as technology, have slowly conspired to diminish the importance of political parties (and their committees). Based on recent events, this appears to be a good thing.
Of course, donors who are turned-off by having party money spent against conservatives in primaries, currently have the option of contributing to the Club for Growth, an organization that has (no doubt) benefited from this disturbing trend. In a sense, the Club functions like a committee for conservatives. Like campaign committees, the Club settles on a select number of races to concentrate its resources on.
One of the factors the Club takes into consideration (when deciding whether or not to support a campaign) is “winnability”; It is important to focus precious resources on candidates (and districts) that can be won. But the Club also (admits) to considering a candidate's political philosophy.
In short, donors know they can make a contribution to the Club, and the Club will take care of figuring out how best to spend their resources (to have the biggest impact on America).
But while the Club works hard to help fiscal conservatives, the conservative movement still lacks an effective organization to fund, train, and provide logistical support to social conservatives.
The Club spends
real money on races they care about. But if most social conservative groups support you -- you get an endorsement (and maybe added to their prayer list). While endorsements are important (and prayers are always appreciated), they do not pay for yard signs, TV ads, or pizza for your volunteers.
Party committee's are still tremendously powerful -- partly because of the Republican "brand". But what if there were two or three conservative groups like the Club?
On the other hand, both party committees will soon be under new leadership. My guess is that the next Chairmen will restore the committee's to their former glory. So I'm hoping this is all a moot point ...
