Journalists trying to evaluate prospective presidential candidates often survey their relative fundraising prowess: High campaign committee, leadership PAC and, increasingly, joint fundraising committee receipts are considered good early signals of seriousness and viability. This week, in comparing the money raised by Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — both frequently mentioned as likely 2016 contenders — New York Times reporter Derek Willis highlighted a hidden ambiguity in campaign finance data



Rubio has brought in nearly $10 million while Paul’s total is only about $6.3 million. But Willis raises this important question: When are receipts less than they seem? It turns out that some fundraising methods are more expensive than others, and this means a greater proportion of revenue is devoted to more fundraising, rather than campaigning. Rubio’s joint fundraising committee churned far more of its money into bringing in more cash, via costly direct mail, than Paul’s. So, Willis asks, shouldn’t we discount revenue by the amount that ends up devoted to just more fundraising?



I’ve spent more than 30 years trying to answer questions just like this one, and the most common answer by far (to the frustration of everyone, including me) is, “it depends.” Every question we can pose to a set of numbers has context, and the best answers always come when that context is laid out clearly and considered precisely in evaluating the data.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

In this example, it’s important to consider that neither of these senators is running for election to any office in 2014. They were both first elected in 2010 and would be running for re-election (or president) in 2016. So the activity we’re comparing is the process of preparing for a major campaign, not engaging in one now.



That’s key because one of the things prospective candidates must do is build ‘name recognition’ and visibility among party activists and others around the nation. Direct mail fundraising appeals can help with that, even if they don’t bring in large sums right away, because the mailings emphasize a potential candidate’s background and remind possible donors why the sender might be a good choice for national office. In this sense it is more of an investment rather than an overhead expense that doesn’t have direct political benefit.



My assessment would be different if Rubio and Paul were running for reelection in 2014; in that case, I would agree with Derek that it’s appropriate to make adjustments for the candidate who spends heavily on fundraising itself, because the fundraising expenses are more likely to detract from the ongoing campaign than to help that effort directly.



Willis points out that data-driven journalism is important because it pushes beyond the most basic information the media often reports, and that’s true. Just as it’s vital to understand more than the unadorned unemployment rate when considering newly reported jobs data, it’s important to consider more than just total fundraising when looking at campaign finance. But thinking about a specific question also requires looking at the context of the activity, and in this case — when it’s happening well in advance of an actual campaign — heavy use of direct mail can lay the groundwork for expanding support for a future run for office.



This means that a lot of times the right answer really is, “it depends.”



For another good example of going beyond the numbers, see Russ Choma’s piece about the ties between Paul and a North Carolina Senate candidate on OpenSecrets Blog. Looking not just at how much money was spent, but how it was spent, can provide valuable insight into a candidate’s behavior and connections.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]





Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜