Democrats are the party of big money

Opinion Journal:

By one important count, this election is over. Barack Obama and the Democrats have trounced Team McCain in fund raising. So much for the Republicans being the party of Big Money -- and for some other illusions about American politics.

As reported to the Federal Election Commission on Monday, the Obama campaign broke its own monthly record, raising $150 million in September. Since this election cycle began, the junior Senator from Illinois has brought in $618 million, about double the take for John McCain. After opting for the one-off $84 million in federal money in postconvention spending, Mr. McCain hoped the Republican National Committee would narrow the gap. Bad assumption. The RNC raised $66 million last month, to help the Presidential and Congressional tickets, but the Democratic Party isn't far behind at $50 million.

Mr. Obama is using these resources to build leads in battleground states, and make inroads in once firmly Republican territory like Georgia and Virginia. The Democrat is outspending Mr. McCain four-to-one on television, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group -- three-and-a-half to one, if Republican Party dollars are included.

In some markets, Mr. Obama has bought up all available media slots in certain times. The campaign put $4.6 million in the past week in Florida, compared to Mr. McCain's $1.4 million; in Virginia, $3.1 million to $1.2; and so on. It bought nationwide advertising during football games and prime time programs. Mr. Obama will even appear in a half-hour prime time infomercial on three networks on October 29 -- possibly delaying the start of Game Six of the World Series.

Mr. Obama's windfall lets him mix positive and negative messages, and he's going especially negative in swing states. An ad in North Carolina blames "politicians like John McCain" for having "sold out" textile workers, who lost their jobs to outsourcing. Another spot claims Mr. McCain put "bad actors ahead of taxpayers" in the financial bailout that Mr. Obama also supported. Another claims Mr. McCain would tax health-care benefits -- a distortion the Republican has failed to rebut, in part because his campaign must pick its advertising spots.

The funding edge also lets Democrats consolidate their organizational advantage. One barometer is boots on the ground. In Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama has 83 field offices, compared to 30 for Mr. McCain. He also has a double-digit lead in the polls. In usually red Virginia, Mr. Obama has 51 offices, Mr. McCain 19.

All of this campaign cash has political consequences, and is an underestimated part of the reason that Mr. Obama has taken a big lead....

...

The Democrat first promised to abide by federal campaign spending limits when he was a long-shot in the primaries. But once he showed he could raise $265 million against Hillary Clinton, he took the rational (if cynical) route by opting out of the government-run program in the autumn. A Republican would have been tarred and feathered by the media, with reports night after night about the "fat cats" funding his campaign; Mr. Obama is getting a pass.

This monumental flip-flop should finally bust the illusion that campaign finance reform is somehow about better government. It is really about power. Liberals campaign for limits when they serve their election purposes but abandon them when they don't. Bill Clinton proved that in 1996 and we are learning that lesson again this year.

...

We want have to worry about legislation restricting campaign finance after this election. Democrats will look for other ways to snuff the opposition like the "fairness doctrine." There will be revelations of abuse by the Chicago boys especially with foreign campaign donations. They may even be criminal cases, but they will not be pursued with any vigor since the perps are not Republicans.