Since July, Warren has raised $24.3 million, while Brown has raised $12.7 million. Republicans attribute Warren's enormous fundraising figures to out-of-state liberal interests. Democrats say Warren has the right message and a chance of winning.
The Associated PressThis composite image of Associated Press photos shows U.S. Sen. Scott Brown and chief Democratic rival Elizabeth Warren handing in signatures to get their names on the fall ballot.
Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren demonstrated her fundraising prowess again this quarter, raising $8.67 million between April and June.
Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, who Warren is challenging, raised $5 million during the same time period. In comparison, the average winning Senate candidate in 2010 raised just over $9 million over the entire election campaign, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.
With the Massachusetts Senate race on track to be the most expensive Senate race in state history – and one of the most expensive in the country – Warren in particular has shown her ability to raise enormous sums.
So far, Warren has raised more money than Brown in all four fundraising quarters since July 2011. Between January and March, she more than doubled Brown’s fundraising total, $6.83 million compared to $3.22 million. Since last July, Warren has raised $24.33 million, compared to $12.74 million for Brown. (Brown started with $6 million left over from his 2010 special election, and by July 2011 had $9.6 million in the bank.)
“The Warren campaign has been able to really pinpoint people and groups who are sympathetic and in line with Warren’s position on a variety of issues, and they’ve been able to get these people to contribute in a big way,” said political consultant Tony Cignoli, who works with candidates of both parties and is not involved in the Senate race. Cignoli said the Warren campaign is doing an “exceptional job” identifying a wide fundraising base – small and large donors, Democratic activists in Massachusetts and well-organized national groups like EMILY’s List.
Cignoli said equally important is the perception that Warren can win. “The Democratic fundraising base in America and Massachusetts thinks Warren is a potential victor, so they’re not wasting money,” Cignoli said.
Details of the candidates’ most recent fundraising will not be available until reports are due to the Federal Election Commission July 15.
In the past, Warren has raised significant sums from Hollywood – an industry that has also contributed reliably to President Obama. Her most recent fundraising figures include proceeds from a May fundraiser Warren held in California hosted by actors Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and The Office's John Krasinski. The minimum donation for that event was $1,000.
Warren has also gotten significant support from liberal advocacy groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and MoveOn.org. A financial report reflecting Warren’s fundraising through March, found the online Democratic clearinghouse ActBlue collected $1.32 million for Warren this election cycle. The website allows donors to give to numerous progressive causes through one site.
Republicans have tried to dismiss Warren’s fundraising as reliant on out of state interests. “Professor Warren’s campaign is largely dependent on out-of-state, extreme special interests and fellow Occupy protestors who share her radical tax, borrow and spend agenda,” said Brown spokeswoman Alleigh Marre.
Warren’s campaign responded by noting that 40,500 Massachusetts residents have contributed to Warren. “Elizabeth Warren has fought hard to create a level playing field for middle class families. It is those men and women who are fueling this campaign,” said Warren campaign manager Mindy Myers.
Several factors are driving interest in the Massachusetts race. The seat is a prize for both sides, with a Republican incumbent running in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, for a seat held for years by Democratic icon Sen. Edward Kennedy. The balance of power in the Senate could hinge on any single race. And both Brown and Warren are national figures – Brown, for winning the Senate seat in an upset special election victory in 2010, and Warren for her work helping to establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and leading a congressional panel overseeing the use of federal bailout money.
The candidates also signed a pledge effectively banning third party advertising, so money that might otherwise be spent by outside organizations may be getting funneled directly to the campaigns.
Warren has been a successful fundraiser since launching her campaign. Former Democratic candidate Alan Khazei dropped out of the race citing difficulties fundraising after Warren decided to run.
Tim Vercellotti, associate professor of political science at Western New England University, said liberal Democrats nationally, particularly those who are disappointed with President Obama, are searching for a voice. “Nationally, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is looking for heroes,” Vercellotti said. “Maybe a lot of enthusiasm that would have been directed to Obama’s campaign in ‘08 is now seeking new people, and Warren fits the bill.”
Todd Domke, a Massachusetts Republican political strategist who is not working on the Senate race, said while it is “astounding” how much Warren has raised, “It’s equally surprising that the Warren campaign is really doing so little with the money in terms of having an impact.”
A June poll done by Western New England University for The Republican and MassLive.com found Brown and Warren essentially tied. Several other polls have also had Brown and Warren within two points of each other.
Domke pointed to the polling as proof that Warren has been unable to translate her money into an effective message. “She doesn’t seem to be able to grow beyond her liberal Democratic base,” Domke said.
Like the Brown campaign, Domke attributed Warren’s high fundraising to out of state interests. And Domke said in the long run, both candidates will have enough money to saturate the electorate with advertising, robocalls and direct mail. The national focus on the race will also result in large amounts of news coverage – so TV ads could have less impact. “Money can’t buy you love, and I don’t think money can buy the undecided voters in this state because both candidates will have (enough),” Domke said. “It’s overkill at some point.”
Jim Spencer, a Democratic political consultant in Boston and president of The Campaign Network, who is not working on the Senate race, pointed out that Brown got numerous out of state contributions when he won the seat. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 60 percent of Brown’s 2010 money came from out of state. Spencer said the most significant thing about Warren’s recent fundraising is that 81 percent of her donations were under $50 – which means Warren has a pool of donors to go back to.
Spencer said there are multiple reasons Democrats are committed to the Massachusetts race – the symbolism of winning back Kennedy’s former seat, the possibility that the balance of the Senate is up for grabs, and the chances of a Democrat winning. “We should be able to take a seat in Massachusetts,” Spencer said.
Additionally, Spencer said in a year with anti-incumbent sentiment, Warren is a Washington outsider with a reputation for fighting Wall Street. “You can be Occupy Wall Street or a Tea Party person and you hate Wall Street in almost exactly the same way,” Spencer said. “She’s got the right message. She’s a fresh face.”
While Spencer acknowledged that the race remains close, he said Warren’s fundraising is significant. “(Brown) started with a huge financial advantage,” Spencer said. “She’s closed the gap.”