Because of the MZM scandal, Virgil Goode's potential contributors found themselves in an awkward position during the last election cycle. At first glance, it doesn't appear that MZM created much of a problem for Goode. In 2003-2004 he raised $818,460 and spent $753,167. In 2005-2006 he raised $993,832 and spent $1,053,174.But closer examination shows that fund raising did indeed pose a serious problem for Goode during the last cycle, and a significant proportion of potential donors chose not to contribute.
Among its aggregations and summaries, opensecrets tracks 13 broad sectors. Clicking on the graphic shows that during this last cycle Goode took in less money in 2006 than in 2004 in all sectors tracked except two: Defense and Ideology/Single Issue. Defense is MZM, and ideology now has its bone.
The sector data from cycles 2002, 2004, and 2006 were gathered from opensecrets, and it's displayed side by side in the bar chart. While contributions in general across candidates have increased rapidly over the last several cycles, some flattening in 2006 is no surprise especially for candidates under scrutiny.
But backing Defense out of the sums and taking totals of the remaining sectors, Goode took in 46.5% less compared to the 2004 cycle. Including Defense inflates the 2006 numbers because of the huge MZM windfall, but still Goode takes a massive hit to the tune of a 37.2% decrease.
Ideally, those results would be compared to the entire universe of congressional candidates. Such an undertaking is not a very realistic task, so I constructed similar profiles for two other Virginia Republicans, Tom Davis and Bob Goodlatte in order to get at least an informal idea of profile behavior.
Davis took a bit of a hit in the Health sector which was offset somewhat by an increase in the Finance sector. Overall he shows a decrease in totals of 8.7%.
Goodlatte was challenged by two Independents, Andre D. Peery and Barbara Jean Pryor. Between them both, contributions totalled less than $11,000. Overall, Goodlatte enjoyed a 1.8% gain.
There may well be some fundamental matters of interest, but Davis and Goodlatte show profiles that aren't particularly remarkable. On the other hand, Goode's profile reflects precipitous losses not at all unlike a catastrophic stock market crash.
The other profiles are here:
Davis
Goodlatte
There is a factor that may alter this picture going forward. Open Secrets works with data from two sources, and their data may not yet reflect very late contributors. If that's the case, then those contributors were most likely trying to minimize visibility by contributing late. I doubt seriously that additions will bring Goode's profile in line with reasonable expectations; mostly likely his profile would continue to be an anomaly.
Goode had to compensate for these reductions by working large numbers of individual contributors even harder. He probably heard apologetic explanations fairly often from those who needed to protect a moderate image, and he probably isn't too happy about being abandoned by people he was counting on. Those who remained loyal, the single issue folks and the small contributors, tended to be even more to the right. Certainly the fierce loyalists were working even harder.
I don't have a link handy, but at the time of the Weed-Goode debate, I was struck by Goode's ill-concealed generalized anger. The end result is an angry congressman much more will to express his extremism as he is reinforced by a group of supporters who already perceive themselves as being unfairly marginalized. The response in the form of Goode's letter and the illogical support it receives, are consistent with this view.
Note: All data are from http://www.opensecre...
But just glancing, in total revenues, Al went from $483,890 in 2004 to $607,638 in 2006. Virgil went from $818,460 to $993,832.
Restricting to the sectors, Weed saw a loss greater than Virgil's, at close to 50%. I don't have a grasp of all the factors and how important they are. For example, Vote No would siphon off some cash from Weed, but how much?
There's an outstanding piece to this analysis that will take a little bit of work. In looking at total contributions by county by party, we expect a drop from 2004 to 2006 because there was no presidential race in 2006. It appears that the drop for Democrats was much greater than for Republicans. The numbers I glanced at would include the Senatorial races.
Can't do it this very minute, but I'll take look at cycle over cycle changes by jurisdiction. If those numbers aren't crazy, a map may be a good display.
All it takes is a few thousand people nationallly giving $100 or so over the next couple years and he can make up any ground lost through other fundraising sources. There are some who may see him as something of a martyr for "speaking the truth".
For someone who is as seasoned as Goode, I have to wonder if some calculation went into his comments.
There is a very real likelihood that his party will be out of power through at least 2010 (assuming they are unable to flip 16 seats in the next election); and this will have an impact on his fundraising. By positioning himself in this way he may have found a new national funding source.
If Goode can make the issue Muslims and immigrants he can also distract voters from his inability to secure money for the district (something that he may have trouble doing over the next few years).
Goode already tries to portray himself somewhat as the persecuted rebellious individualist. Who knows how much real support he can gain from it. It doesn't quite fit him.
I'm really NOT picking on Goode with this, just observing. He isn't going to tap into the ultimate golden egg that would bring in piles of cash no matter what his ideology: stunning good looks.
I could definitely see a congressman sustaining a career going this route (emphasis on "sustain" not "advance").
Tom Tancredo seems to have gone this same route too.
Hopefully, a critical mass of folks in the 5th push for a change in direction.
