[net.politics] New Right Money Woes

rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (07/03/85)

From an interview with National Journal reporter Ronald Brownstein on
NPR's "All Things Considered" 7/2/85:

NCPAC & far right direct-mail baron Richard Viguerie raised a phenomenal
$20 million last year through direct mail appeals to help re-elect Reagan,
but the expenses they incurred to do this were even greater, thus they 
actually suffered a net loss!

Furthermore, 85% of all the money NCPAC raised was in turn spent on more
direct mail fundraising, & very little on basic political publicity like
radio & TV ads, polling, other advertising, etc.

A federal regulation (I believe) requires political fundraising groups
to state in their appeals how the funds will be spent.  NCPAC's mailing
claimed a $25 contribution would pay for radio spots, & a $500 one would 
go toward purchasing TV time.  Yet NCPAC earmarked all such contributions
for further direct mail efforts.  This wasn't so much a matter of intentional
fraud on NCPAC's part as it was its being captive to the huge expenses of 
direct mail campaigns.

What will be the effect on the 1986 & 1988 campaigns?  Many conservative 
activists now believe there'll be no money except for more direct mail
efforts, thus extending the vicious circle into the future.

"Reagan is a means, not an end" : this is how many neo-right leaders have
described the 1984 Reagan re-election campaign.  For NCPAC specifically,
this meant Reagan was a means of rebuilding its contributor list, using
Reagan's name to wipe out previously incurred debts.

The real influence of the far right on national politics has been debated
for years now.  The above facts tend to indicate the neo-right has no 
real effect, or a purely negative one: to drain money away from GOP &
especially conservative campaign funding.

					Cheers,

					Ron Rizzo


"If it costs a lot, it has to be good."

		-- Electra Collage, Miss Ballot Box of 1947,
		   on being arrested for shoplifting at Cartier's