Oct 27, 2006 -- Natioanl Journal: The New Rainmakers
By Eliza Newlin Carney

When Congress passed the McCain-Feingold law in 2002, political experts were remarkably unanimous about what would happen once soft money -- the large, unregulated contributions that were paying for the bulk of federal elections -- was banned. The political parties would be strapped for cash. Outside interest groups and wealthy individuals would dominate campaigns. And the voices of parties and candidates would be drowned out.

If anything, the opposite has occurred. In this election, the first midterm since the law took effect, the parties appear poised to play an unprecedented role. Challengers and incumbents have raised record sums and, in competitive races, are surprisingly evenly matched. Outside groups are active, but not as well-funded as they were in the 2004 presidential campaign. And overall spending could hit $2.6 billion, substantially more than the $2.2 billion spent in the last midterm, when soft money dominated.

"You're going to have the most financially competitive races that we've seen in a long time," said Tony Corrado , a professor of government at Colby College. The big story of the 2006 campaign, Corrado added, is that the party committees -- particularly those that back House and Senate candidates -- are flush with cash. "They're going to outspend all the other entities, including the '527' [groups], by a vast amount," he said.

The strength of the parties is only one of the many surprises to come out of the landmark 2002 law, officially known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. While the centerpiece was the soft-money ban, the act also raised the limit on hard-money donations, which face restrictions on their size and source, and made it more difficult to run issue-oriented ads at election time.

Political players are still disputing the real impact of the McCain-Feingold law, which took effect the day after the November 2002 election, and the results may take years to play out. Republicans continue to argue that the law disproportionately weakened the parties vis-a -vis outside interest groups.

But certain trends are coming into focus. In an all-hard-money world, individual donors who write small checks are prized. These small donors are flocking to parties and candidates, with record numbers giving $200 or less. The technologies that rally such donors -- most notably, the Internet -- have transformed fundraising, and have proved a particular boon to Democrats.

Hard-money fundraising also favors corporate bundlers, who can round up tens of thousands of dollars in employee contribution on a single day -- a practice facing new scrutiny at the Federal Election Commission. Lobbyists face greater pressure to tap their client networks, and to dig deeper into their own pockets. Lawmakers, who are well positioned to raise hard money, are forking over record sums to the parties. Political action committees, which raise only hard dollars, have grown in size and number. Higher contribution limits have allowed big donors to stay in the game.

Outside groups, too, are continuing to innovate. Nonprofit organizations, including charities, are pushing the limits of permitted political activity, to the consternation of the Internal Revenue Service and some on Capitol Hill. Some activists are even setting up for-profit corporations, which are free from contribution limits and reporting requirements, to run grassroots voter-education and mobilization drives.

These are just some of the latest surprises in the brash, hyper-competitive, and constantly changing world of campaign fundraising. In this piece, National Journal looks at the top 10 political money trends in this election cycle, one in which control of Congress is up for grabs -- and in which there is plenty of money to go around. "Lack of money," Corrado said, "is not going to determine any of these outcomes."

The Bloggers
At 11 a.m. on a recent Monday, organizers at the liberal Web-based PAC called MoveOn.org sent out an e-mail asking for donations to its fledgling get-out-the-vote program. "By 3 o'clock, we had raised about $200,000," recalled Eli Pariser , MoveOn.org's executive director. And, by the following morning, donations had reached half a million dollars.

That fast start bodes well for the PAC's drive to reach 5 million voters through person-to-person phone calls by Election Day. It also epitomizes the power of Internet fundraising. For Democrats, in particular, the Internet has fulfilled the promise of quick cash, a cheap way to reach fired-up volunteers, and a tool to blunt the Republicans' traditional fundraising edge.

Republicans, for their part, have not missed the point-and-click revolution. Some political scientists argue that Republicans are actually better than Democrats at using the Internet to rally volunteers. And at least one pro-GOP Internet group, dubbed ABC PAC, has sprung up to collect online donations to help Republicans in tight races.

"ABC PAC is the answer for those in the conservative community online who have been clamoring for a Republican counter to the Democrats who have, so far, outraised Republicans on the Internet," declares the group's Web site. So far, though, ABC PAC's coffers are virtually empty, according to the latest FEC reports. And Republicans acknowledge that Democrats remain far more Internet-savvy.

"Republicans came late in the game, and they still need to improve," said GOP fundraiser Nathan Wurtzel , a partner with the Catalyst Group.

With just three e-mails, for example, Sen. John Kerry , D-Mass., raised $200,000 for Democrat Tammy Duckworth , a military veteran running against state GOP Sen. Peter Roskam for the open House seat in the 6th District of Illinois. Overall, Duckworth has netted $2.8 million to Roskam's $2.5 million.

House candidate Joe Sestak is another Democrat who has outraised his opponent, Rep. Curt Weldon , R-Pa., thanks in part to the Internet. A retired Navy vice admiral, Sestak, aided by a Boston-based Democratic PAC called ActBlue, has pulled in $2.3 million since announcing his candidacy in February.

Since its inception in 2004, ActBlue has collected $13.8 million on behalf of candidates. Close to $750,000 of that went to Sestak, whose anti-war message has resonated in the liberal blogosphere. The PAC invites donors of all stripes, from brownie-baking moms to bloggers, to set up user-friendly Web sites to collect money for their favorite Democratic candidates. Several popular progressive blogs, such as Daily Kos, use ActBlue to fund what they call "netroots" candidates.

"We're taking the top-tier tools that were previously only available to very well-funded organizations, and saying anybody can use it," said Benjamin Rahn , the 29-year-old president of ActBlue, which has set up 2,500 fundraising sites so far.

MoveOn.org routinely e-mails its 3 million subscribers, asking them to support its anointed Democratic candidates. So far in this election, MoveOn has bundled more than $3 million on behalf of 18 candidates. That includes close to $800,000 raised in a 72-hour period for Sen. Robert Byrd , D-W.Va., another favorite of the anti-war crowd. The PAC's overall receipts topped $20 million as of September 30, according to FEC records.

"I don't think these people are going to go away," Pariser said of the new crop of online donors. "And I don't think they're going to go back to either attending rubber-chicken dinners or [contributing via] direct mail."

The Bundlers
Among corporate campaign donors, the Atlanta-based energy-trading firm known as the IntercontinentalExchange, or ICE, is hardly a household name. But this year, the firm has quietly rustled up more than $50,000 for Georgia's two Republican senators. On a single day in mid-May, ICE employees wrote checks totaling $27,250 for GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss . (ICE checks given to Chambliss total $31,950 overall.) Similarly, ICE executives gave GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson $23,450 over the course of a few days in June.

Such bundled donations represent a growing trend in campaign giving. Bundled checks -- defined as more than 10 contributions coming on a single day, from a single organization, to one recipient -- total more than $15 million so far in this election, compared with a total of $10.8 million in the 2002 election, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Bundling is hardly new, of course. Groups such as EMILY's List, the abortion-rights PAC that supports Democratic women, and the Club for Growth, which backs fiscal conservatives, have made their names by collecting tens of thousands of dollars in small checks for their hand-picked candidates.

But a new generation of bundlers has emerged in the ranks of corporate America, led by executives who tap their employees for hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time. The McCain-Feingold ban on soft money included a prohibition on direct corporate contributions. Although bundling is in no way illegal, some experts see it as a way around the rules.

"It certainly raises concern that the practice of bundling provides an end run around the limits," said Sheila Krumholz , acting executive director of the CRP, which has identified bundling as one of the top trends in this midterm election. In an analysis for National Journal, the group turned up hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign "bundles," not just from ICE but also from such companies as the broadcast giant Clear Channel, the financial services firm MBNA (now Bank of America), and the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs.

"At one level, that's citizens participating in the process, and that's a good thing," said Trevor Potter , president and general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, and a former chairman of the FEC. "On the other hand, I think it makes it more important that the FEC rules on coercion be adhered to. And I think the commission has been active in that area."

Indeed, the FEC has handled a growing number of complaints involving employers who have reportedly pressured employees into making contributions. Most notably, the FEC in April slapped a $3.8 million civil penalty -- the commission's largest-ever fine -- on the government-chartered mortgage company Freddie Mac. Among other violations, the FEC found that Freddie Mac had used corporate staff and resources to solicit campaign donations from company employees.

"These bundlers are becoming infinitely more important," said Rodney Smith , author of "Money, Power & Elections: How Campaign Finance Reform Subverts American Democracy," and a former finance director for all three GOP party committees. "And most of them are lobbyists, or people with a vested interest."

The Nonprofits
It was a political attack ad -- blasting Democratic failures in the war on terrorism, and touting GOP successes -- not unlike many that television viewers have seen this fall. But the six-figure spot that ran on national TV on October 11 had one very unusual characteristic: It was paid for by a 501(c)(3) charity, a type of tax-exempt group that the IRS bans from engaging in partisan political activity.

The California-based charity that sponsored the ad, Move America Forward, is only one of dozens of tax-exempt groups that have moved, increasingly boldly, into national politics. From churches that distribute partisan voter guides, to 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups that sponsor high-dollar, candidate-focused ads, nonprofits involved in politics are raising eyebrows on Capitol Hill and at the IRS.

"This is a growth area in this election," said Steven Weissman , associate director for policy at the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, which in July released a report detailing how interest groups leverage their 501(c)(4) advocacy organizations to increase their influence in federal elections.

The scope of political involvement by tax-exempt groups is impossible to estimate, largely because such groups face virtually no public-disclosure rules. This lack of transparency is just what makes the nonprofit sector such a tempting vehicle for political players, say campaign finance and tax law experts.

No fewer than five nonprofits appeared to have violated the rules in their dealings with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff , according to an October 12 report released by Senate Finance Committee ranking member Max Baucus , D-Mont. The nonprofits' apparent violations included laundering donations from Abramoff's clients to hide their source, and acting as front organizations for congressional trips, the report found.

The IRS is boosting its scrutiny of nonprofits, particularly 501(c)(3) charities, which represent the fastest-growing segment of the tax-exempt sector. The agency has put out new guidelines that define limits on political intervention and has signaled that it will be on the alert for abuses by nonprofits, including churches, in this election.

One group that is already attracting complaints is Focus on the Family, a leading nonprofit for social conservatives, which has reportedly launched its largest midterm voter drive to date. The group, which operates both a 501(c)(3) charity and a 501(c)(4) social welfare arm, is rallying churches to help distribute voter guides in eight states with hotly contested Senate and gubernatorial races. Focus on the Family maintains that the effort is nonpartisan.

But the watchdog group Americans United for Separation of Church and State has sent letters of warning [PDF] to 117,000 individual churches in those states and in three other states where the group anticipates that pastors will get involved in politics.

"One of the things I'm most worried about is that [Focus on the Family] will lure tax-exempt groups, including (c)(3)s and local churches, into becoming cogs in their political community," said Barry Lynn , executive director of Americans United. His main concern, Lynn said, is that the group's voter guides and scorecards will be uniformly pro-Republican and anti-Democrat.

The Leaders (And Followers)
Sen. Elizabeth Dole , R-N.C., has resorted to ever-more-creative tricks to persuade her GOP colleagues to raise money for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which she chairs.

One of Dole's gimmicks was to give each senator a toolbox containing just a tape measure, to "measure" their donations. She then handed out a shiny new tool to each senator who roped in a "Majority Maker," a donor who contributed $26,700 to the NRSC. Each senator who brought in four Majority Makers won a power drill. Dole displayed the names of the drill recipients on a tote board for all to see during the Senate GOP's weekly luncheons.

"It was a lot of fun," Dole said during an interview with National Journal, although she conceded that lugging heavy power tools around had its downside. "Carrying them through the Capitol was not the best idea."

The NRSC might need to look for new tools for collecting checks, because it has raised less from incumbents in this election than the other three congressional campaign committees have. Still, Dole's tactics show that with the parties no longer permitted to raise soft money, leaders are leaning harder than ever on the folks who are most adept at raising hard-money contributions: members of Congress.

Member-to-member giving is, in fact, one of the most noticeable and dramatic trends of this election. Consider the eye-popping 242 so-called "leadership PACs" run by House members and senators, from the leaders on down to lowly freshmen. Tapping their PACs and their campaign committees, lawmakers are contributing record sums to the parties and to candidates. They're also hosting fundraisers for their colleagues in close races.

Direct political donations from sitting lawmakers have more than doubled since about the same point in the last midterm election. In this election, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, lawmakers have so far contributed more than $60 million from their personal PACs and campaign accounts to the party committees, compared with just over $21 million at the same point in 2002.

Democrats have been particularly successful in persuading members to pony up. If anything, House Democrats are falling all over themselves to write checks for candidates who could help them regain the majority. "I don't really have to do a big sales job," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz , D-Fla., who with Rep. Chris Van Hollen , D-Md., co-chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's "Red to Blue" program.

The program's goal is to get House Democrats to contribute to key races in battleground areas, Van Hollen said. "Member enthusiasm and involvement is very good, and rising every day," he noted. That has helped the DCCC pull in a record $25 million from members so far in this cycle -- just ahead of the $24.6 million that lawmakers on the other side of the aisle have given to the National Republican Congressional Committee thus far.

Even Dole's committee, although it has raised a comparatively small $3.2 million from incumbents, is way ahead of what it had taken in at the same point in 1998. Back then, members handed over just $15,000 to the NRSC. Today, that looks downright paltry.

The Little People
In the arcane parlance of federal election law, they're known as "unitemized contributions" -- that is, donations of $200 or less. And, in an election where the Center for Responsive Politics estimates that total spending could reach $2.6 billion, a donation in the two- or three-digit range might seem hardly worth counting. Yet increasingly, small checks are at the heart of modern fundraising.

Low-dollar contributions, in fact, may turn out to be the most important legacy of the McCain-Feingold law. The political parties have successfully rounded up small, individual contributions to help make up for the loss of the big checks that the law banned.

Until now, Republicans have always beaten Democrats in the race to collect low-dollar checks from activist donors. But the GOP's mass-audience fundraising tool of choice -- direct mail -- is notoriously costly. Thanks mostly to the Internet, Democrats have been able to all but skip the direct-mail contest, and go straight to the next generation of fundraising technology.

Republican party committees have raised nearly $161 million in small, unitemized contributions, making up 47 percent of their total receipts, according to an analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute. That compares with about $149 million in the 2002 midterm election, when small donations filled about 32 percent of GOP party coffers.

For Democrats, the jump is even more dramatic. In 2002, donors contributing $200 or less gave just over $50 million to Democratic party committees, nearly 20 percent of the total. In this election, small contributions to the Democratic committees have more than doubled, totaling $109 million, or about 48 percent of the total.

Small, unitemized contributions first made a splash in the past two presidential elections, when they helped two insurgent candidates -- Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean , now the Democratic National Committee chairman -- to launch credible campaigns. At that time, some political scientists speculated that the rush of low-dollar contributions from often first-time political donors might be a short-lived phenomenon, driven by the unique atmospherics of a tight, polarized presidential race. This election has aroused similar passions. But even setting atmospherics aside, small donors are clearly here to stay.

The K Street Crowd
Although lobbyists have always been in the thick of the political money wars, this election has put them on the front lines. Lawmakers fighting for control of Congress are leaning more heavily than ever on lobbyists to gin up campaign contributions. With control of the House, and possibly the Senate, up for grabs, some lobbyists loyal to the GOP now face awkward questions about how much to give to the Democrats.

In one sense, lobbyists aren't doing anything particularly new this time around. They've always hosted fundraisers, rounded up checks from clients, set up PACs, introduced lawmakers to donors, and contributed directly.

But the soft-money ban has increased pressure on lobbyists, who -- with their fat Rolodexes and their client networks -- are ideally positioned to collect hard-dollar contributions. Some argue, in fact, that the heightened role of lobbyists in recent years helped to pave the way for the scandals involving Jack Abramoff and other lobbyists now under investigation.

One big change, K Street veterans say, is that it's not enough any more to simply bring in checks from clients. Lobbyists are now expected to write personal checks, and lawmakers are asking for those checks a lot more often.

McCain-Feingold has made for "a marked difference in the degree and volume of personal monies contributed by the K Street community," said Larry O'Brien , a founding partner of the OB-C Group, and one of Washington's top-giving lobbyists. Having donated $40,000 to candidates and $61,400 to party committees this election, he has maxed out, said O'Brien, a Democrat. "I'm into my wife's limits now," he said wryly. "She's just really wildly enthusiastic about that."

Collectively, K Street's 10 most generous lobbyists have handed over $1.5 million to candidates and party committees so far in this election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. (The data reflect FEC filings through October 10, the most recent available.) Like O'Brien, the other big contributors have each doubled up with their spouses to give more than $100,000 in personal money.

Are lobbyists hedging their bets, with the prospect of a possible Democratic takeover? So far, FEC data don't show PACs and lobbyists tilting dramatically away from the GOP. But public reports are not yet in for the election's final weeks, when such shifts typically take place.

"We have not noticed any slackening at this point," said a GOP party official who spoke on background. "It remains to be seen if our allies suddenly decide to turn on us or not."

But one GOP fundraiser noted that Republican-friendly PACs and lobbyists, while they may not be suddenly shoveling money to Democrats, appear to have simply stopped writing checks. "People are always looking for a reason not to give," this fundraiser said, "and this is a pretty easy out."

The Stealth Bombers
No matter how many new rules come along, political players always find some creative way to fly under the radar. Two years ago, the most notorious "stealth bombers" were the so-called 527 groups, political organizations that enjoy tax-exempt status under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue code.

Financier George Soros donated close to $24 million to Democrat-friendly 527 groups, such as America Coming Together and the Media Fund. Watchdog groups -- and Republicans outraged at the tens of millions of dollars spent by liberal 527s -- howled that the campaign finance law didn't really ban soft money, it just shifted it to outside groups.

Republicans still complain that 527 groups dominate unfairly, and they have set out to limit them drastically. But in this election, at least, the controversial 527s appear far less imposing. They have failed to raise anything like the money they did in 2004. Many have shifted their activities to the state level. And other types of nontraditional groups, including nonprofits and even for-profit corporations, have started playing more aggressively in campaigns.

Not that 527 groups have completely faded from view.

While America Coming Together and the Media Fund have closed their doors, another progressive 527 -- America Votes -- has expanded its budget and its role. America Votes had a $2 million budget in 2004 but expects to boost that to $10.5 million in this election, said President Maggie Fox . The group has set up nonfederal PACs in several states, ostensibly to support state legislative races. Also conveniently for America Votes, in the battleground states where it operates these nonfederal accounts -- including Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania -- it faces no contribution limits, and reporting is spotty.

The September Fund, another 527, run by Democratic operative Harold Ickes , reportedly plans to spend $25 million in this election. Several 527 groups are active on the conservative side, too, including Progress for America, which has already run three pro-GOP ads playing up the terror threat.

Still, 527s have plenty of company. Labor unions plan a massive get-out-the-vote drive. Pro-business organizations have launched grassroots voter-turnout operations on behalf of conservative candidates, in some cases under the umbrella of trade associations or even for-profit organizations.

The Business Industry Political Action Committee has "several million" dollars for its so-called Prosperity Fund, BIPAC officials said. The fund encourages employers to communicate directly with employees on issues, and to help turn out voters. It operates essentially as a for-profit entity, meaning that it has no campaign finance restrictions or reporting requirements.

"Taxable organizations can be an outlet for these political expenditures, and they are not regulated," noted Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute.

Another for-profit entity that bears watching, he said, is Catalist, a sophisticated data-gathering corporation set up by Ickes. Catalist combines voter-registration information with commercial data to equip activists to target voters with new precision.

The Republican National Committee's data-driven voter turnout operation -- or "microtargeting" -- is already in full swing, but the DNC is still developing its counterpart. Catalist is selling its data to progressive groups, including America Votes, in a move that may help ensure that Democrats, too, enjoy the benefits of microtargeting.

This unique marriage of a for-profit entity with 527s, nonprofits, and PACs "could mark yet another frontier of undisclosed but effective campaign fundraising," wrote Weissman in CFI's July report on moneyed interest groups. Increasingly, when such marriages take place, most of the details remain secret.

The Sugar Daddies
In the 2002 midterm, California investor Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl , donated close to $9.4 million to Democratic candidates and party committees. That made Saban, the chairman and CEO of Los Angeles-based Saban Capital Group, the most generous individual contributor in that election.

In this election cycle, the Sabans have given liberally -- they've passed out close to $100,000 in political contributions so far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But like other deep-pocketed donors from Hollywood or Wall Street who are impeded by the soft-money ban, the Sabans can no longer change the fortunes of a candidate or party with a single stroke of a pen.

Some big donors have turned to the unregulated world of 527 groups and other nontraditional fundraising vehicles. In 2004, Democratic sugar daddy Peter Lewis gave close to $23 million to liberal 527s. But in this election, Lewis, like his fellow 527 benefactor Soros, is keeping a lower profile. Lewis has given $1.6 million to 527s so far, CRP data show. Soros, who gave 527s more than $20 million two years ago, has doled out just $2.9 million.

For the most part, though, big donors have simply shifted their focus to hard money, which they can now hand out in larger chunks than before. An individual may give $4,200 to a candidate per election cycle, and up to $40,000 to candidates as a group. And an individual may give $26,700 a year to a single party committee, or $53,400 per election cycle.

That's still a hefty sum. And in this midterm, the party committees, particularly those backing House and Senate candidates, have aggressively chased the $20,000-plus crowd. For all of their success in bringing in low-dollar donations, the parties have done equally well with wealthy donors, political scientists say, boosting their receipts at both extremes.

The RNC has done the best job of wooing big donors in this election, according to data compiled by the Campaign Finance Institute. The committee's contributions from donors of $20,000 or more through September 30 total $28.3 million. Next in line is the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, with $20.6 million from big donors, and the DCCC, with $13.9 million.

The DSCC chairman, Sen. Charles Schumer , D-N.Y., and his DCCC counterpart, Rep. Rahm Emanuel , D-Ill., have "launched a dual strategy," said David Magleby , a political science professor at Brigham Young University, and co-author of "Financing the 2004 Election." "On the one hand, they have significantly expanded the unitemized, small-donor base," Magleby noted. But "equally important" has been Democratic Party leaders' pursuit of big donors.

It's this combined strategy that has helped Democrats make up for the loss of soft money, Magleby noted. (Democrats had raised most of their party money in soft dollars under the old rules.)

The one exception has been the DNC, which has not pulled in big donors at the same rate as the House and Senate party committees. Magleby's explanation: "Donor confidence in party committee leadership." Dean's heavy focus on shoring up state parties has been controversial and has alienated some of his fellow Democrats.

The Power PACs
In theory, political action committees should have been the one sector least affected by the soft-money ban. They deal exclusively with hard money, and the PAC contribution limit remains at $5,000 per election, or $10,000 per election cycle, both for what they may receive from an individual and for what they may contribute to a candidate.

What did change, however, was the environment in which PACs operate. Once the law banned soft money, hard-money entities -- most notably PACs -- became suddenly more powerful. For the first time, PACs are projected to raise and spend more than $1 billion in this election, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. Business PACs, in particular, have more than doubled their contributions in the past four years, the center found. Business PAC contributions have reached $66.9 million in this election so far, compared with just under $33 million in 2002.

"I think there is a pro-PAC energy," said Monica Notzon , head of the GOP fundraising and consulting firm the Bellwether Group, and a former PAC director at the NRCC. "One of the biggest trends we saw, post-campaign finance reform, was the increased pressure on PACs."

Lobbyists are encouraging their clients to start PACs, Notzon noted, with the recognition that even a $30,000 PAC based outside the Beltway can make a difference. In this election, a number of corporations have hurriedly launched PACs late in the game, possibly scrambling to help their pro-business friends in the GOP retain House control. No fewer than 14 corporations registered PACs in September, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a Web-based group that tracks money in politics. At the same time, many older PACs have ramped up their budgets.

The Hardy Parties
The political parties are going into the final days of this hard-fought midterm election with no shortage of cash-on-hand.

The RNC has more than $26 million in its coffers, which it plans to lavish on vulnerable House and Senate candidates. The DNC has less, with just over $8 million, but the DCCC and DSCC are positioned to make up any shortage -- combined, they have almost $59 million in ready money.

"There are going to be a lot of races where the parties put in more than $1 million," predicted Michael Malbin , executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute. "This tells you that the dominant voice in the last month is going to be the party voice."

Back in 2002, nobody would have predicted such a vigorous party role. Opponents of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act went so far as to warn that banning soft money would all but kill the parties. In fact the parties appear to be thriving.

"Overall they appear very, very competitive," said Potter of the Campaign Legal Center. "The party committees have not been made irrelevant by BCRA, which was the claim of opponents of BCRA. That's simply not happened."

Republican Party leaders still bemoan the soft-money ban, which they argue has disproportionately advantaged pro-Democratic 527 groups. "There's a big loophole in the law for these 527s," said RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman in an interview. At the same time, he predicted that the RNC will spend more than $60 million on congressional races in this election -- more than twice what it has ever spent before.

Over at the NRSC and the NRCC, party leaders are hungrily eyeing the RNC's deep pockets. While the DNC has lagged behind under Dean, the DSCC and the DCCC have cashed in on an anti-Bush, anti-incumbent political climate that has motivated Democratic donors. That's left the NRCC and the NRSC looking over their shoulders -- and relying heavily on the national committee to make up the difference.

"The RNC is very much like the cavalry coming over the hill," said Rep. Tom Cole , R-Okla., who sits on the executive committee of the NRCC. "We're in a tough fight, and you can see their sabers glinting in the sunlight." Whatever the outcome, Cole added, no GOP candidate will be left in the lurch. "We're not going to lose races because we didn't have the money," he said.

Political analysts concur. "The party role has dramatically, dramatically increased," said Brookings Institution scholar Thomas Mann . "This is not about individual races as much as it is about the battle of parties' control for the House and Senate."