Purity test

Warren creates purity test unseen in modern presidential politics

The Massachusetts senator's swearing off of big fundraisers and donor calls puts the rest of the Democratic field in an uncomfortable spot.

By NATASHA KORECKI and MAGGIE SEVERNS

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s decision to block big donors from having special access to her presidential campaign amounts to voluntary disarmament – a major risk that could send precious dollars to competing campaigns.

But the Warren camp is betting the move to ban donor calls, private donor meetings and high-dollar private fundraisers will elevate her as the principled leader in a crowded primary race, one in which she has issued among the most stringent self-imposed presidential campaign finance restrictions in modern history.

“She is an outsider. She is a reformer. She is an anti-corruption candidate, and this is one of many steps she has taken to help cement that in the mind of voters,” a senior Warren aide told POLITICO. “By not doing the traditional big-dollar finance program, she will have a lot more time than other candidates to focus on organizing in the early states and other priorities.”

The self-imposed restrictions will undoubtedly leave money on the table from big donors who've supported Warren in the past.

But they could also help her make the case that she shouldn’t be dismissed as irrelevant or unviable when the first fundraising period closes on March 31. Warren is expected to significantly under-perform Bernie Sanders and other leading candidates.

The subject line of an email from Warren to supporters on Monday seemed to forecast fundraising disappointment: “This decision will ensure I'm outraised in this race.”

Warren already has $12 million in the bank, the amount left over from her Senate campaign run, giving her flexibility to build a nationwide infrastructure. Opposing campaigns privately point out that she raised that money with the help of big donors and the tactics she’s shunning moving forward.

Since 2012, Warren built up an extensive national network of donors that included regular donor-focused trips to the likes of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Austin or Chicago. She also took part in donor calls and meetings, though she dialed down the practice in 2018. She hasn't held any fundraisers since announcing her exploratory bid on Dec. 31.

Warren’s new position is the most aggressive anti-big money stance taken by a candidate in modern presidential history — extending beyond Bernie Sanders’ 2016 strategy, a transformational moment in small-donor fundraising.

ActBlue reports show Warren raised just under $300,000 in the 24 hours after her announcement. Sanders reported raising $6 million in the day after he jumped in.

Warren's announcement is an implicit concession that she's going to be out-raised, a key measure of strength for a presidential campaign. But her positioning as the true crusader against big money in politics could give her an advantage with voters — and potentially allow her to call out her Democratic rivals for falling short of her standard.

She would have the most difficulty criticizing Sanders, given that he held few private fundraisers during his 2016 run and has not indicated he will hire fundraisers to stage private meetings with donors during his 2020 bid.

Moneyed donors are unlikely to be completely shut out from Warren’s campaign. Her new rules would not preclude her from holding fundraising events with low-dollar entry fees. And Warren’s restrictions wouldn’t prohibit her finance team from calling big donors to ask for money, though those donors won’t be able to leverage time or access with her.

Notably, the policy would be loosened if she advances to the general election. In an email to supporters, she alluded to changing course against Republicans.

“By then we’ll be up against a Republican machine that will be hell-bent on keeping the White House,” she wrote. “They will have PACs and Super PACs and too many special interest groups to count, and we will do what is necessary to match them financially. That means investing — starting now — in each and every one of our state parties, and in our national party too.”

Former President Barack Obama drew a stir in political circles when he announced his own restrictions during his 2008 run, shunning any PAC contributions and those from federally-registered lobbyists.

“It was the first time anyone had done that before. Everyone freaked out about it. There was a lot of uncertainty around how that would play out,” said Ami Copeland, a former deputy finance director to Obama. “It was much more of a potent issue to utilize on the trail as opposed to hurting us.”

Still, Obama didn’t cut off personal access to high-dollar donors, a tactic Copeland called risky, given the desire by donors to have a personal interaction with a candidate. By not meeting with donors privately, Warren could risk losing out on opportunities to build off a donor’s larger local or national networks.

Copeland said Barack and Michelle Obama held 130 fundraising events in just one quarter during the 2008 Democratic primary, events that made up 80 percent of their total fundraising, he said.

Copeland said Warren’s strategy puts even more emphasis on small donors, a potentially volatile stream of financing in a field where more than a dozen candidates might be attempting to stand apart to drive those dollars.

“Operationally it’s going to be a really big challenge for them. It’s hard to put together a budget based on an unknown intake,” Copeland said. "It’s not just her losing a class of donors, she’s also pushing them to other operations and other campaigns. That in the long-term will be an issue."

Most candidates fundraise by tapping both small-dollar online donors and high-dollar fundraisers, where donors can cut checks of up to $2,800 during the primary. Candidates and campaign officials can also appear at fundraisers for super PACs, a practice adopted by both Barack Obama and Donald Trump’s campaigns.

Since announcing their presidential bids, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker have all attended or said they plan to attend high-dollar fundraisers held in Hollywood, New York and San Francisco.

“This is bold and innovative and a way to show that you will not be bought by any special interest and that every voice matters,” said Adam Bozzi, communications director for the pro-reform group End Citizens United. “When people run for president, linking fundraising to their time and their attention is something that has happened for a long time.”

Competing campaigns saw her motives differently: In conversations with POLITICO, aides to multiple competing candidates said the Warren campaign was likely maneuvering to shield itself from low fundraising numbers after its launch, and pointed out there were potential holes in Warren’s policy that would still allow her to raise money from large donors. No candidates spoke on the record about Warren’s announcement.

“It’s blatant expectations-lowering” around Warren’s fundraising, said one aide on a Democratic presidential campaign. “If this is a values-driven decision, to then say she’ll revert back to taking big money during the general election feels odd.”