Warren creates an invisible purity test in modern presidential politics

Senator Elizabeth Warren's decision to prevent big donors from gaining privileged access to her presidential campaign amounts to voluntary disarmament – a major risk that could send valuable sums to competing campaigns.

But Warren's camp is betting on the decision to ban donor appeals, private donor meetings and very expensive private fundraisers will make it a leader in an overcrowded primary race, in which she participated in the presidential campaign self-imposed the strictest financial restrictions in modern history.

History continues below

"She is an outsider. This is a reformer. She is an anti-corruption candidate, and this is one of the many steps she has taken to help consolidate this in the minds of voters, "said a senior Warren adviser to POLITICO. "By not participating in the traditional big budget program, she will have much more time than other candidates to focus on organizing in the first states and on other priorities."

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

But they could also help her to prove that she should not be rejected for irrelevance or impossibility at the end of the first round of fundraising on March 31st. Warren is expected to have underperformed Bernie Sanders and other leading candidates.

The subject of an email from Warren to supporters on Monday seemed to indicate a disappointment for the fundraiser: "This decision will guarantee that I am overvalued in this race."

Warren already has $ 12 million in the bank, the remaining amount of his campaign in the Senate, which gives him the opportunity to build a national infrastructure. Private campaigns told her that she had raised the money with the help of big donors and the tactics she was avoiding going forward.

Since 2012, Warren has established an extensive national donor network, which included regular donor-focused visits, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Austin or Chicago. She has also taken part in calls and meetings with donors, although she has reduced the practice in 2018. She has not organized any fundraising activities since the announcement of her exploratory offer. the 31st of December.

Warren's new position is the most aggressive position against big funds adopted by a candidate in modern presidential history, going beyond Bernie Sanders' strategy for 2016, a turning point in fundraising for small businesses donors.

According to ActBlue, Warren would have collected just under $ 300,000 within 24 hours of his announcement. Sanders reported collecting $ 6 million the day after his arrival.

Warren's announcement is an implicit concession that it is going to be elevated, an essential measure of the strength of a presidential campaign. But his position as a real fighter against big money in politics could give him an edge over voters – and eventually allow him to call his Democratic rivals for not living up to his standard.

She would have the most difficulty criticizing Sanders, since he had organized few private fundraisers during his run in 2016 and that he had not indicated that he would engage Fundraisers to hold private meetings with donors during its 2020 bid.

Donors who have received funding are unlikely to be completely excluded from Warren's campaign. His new rules would not prevent him from organizing fundraisers with low entrance fees. In addition, Warren's restrictions would not prevent his finance team from calling big donors to ask for money, even though these donors may not be able to save time or access his services.

The policy would be relaxed if it ran in general elections. In an email to supporters, she spoke of a change of course against Republicans.

"At that time, we will be dealing with a Republican machine that wants to keep the White House," she wrote. "They will have CAPs and super PACs and too many interest groups to be able to count, and we will do what is necessary to make them coincide financially. It means investing now in each of our States Parties and in our national party as well.

Former President Barack Obama caused a stir in political circles when he announced his own restrictions during his 2008 run, avoiding any contribution from the PAC and federally registered lobbyists.

"It was the first time anyone had done it before. Everyone has panicked about it. There was a lot of uncertainty as to how this would unfold, "said Ami Copeland, former assistant chief financial officer of Obama. "It was a lot more of a problem to use on the trail than to hurt us."

Yet Obama has not prevented personal access to high-priced donors, a risky tactic that Copeland has described as risky, given donors' desire to have personal interaction with a donor. candidate. By not meeting privately with donors, Warren risked losing opportunities to strengthen larger local or national donor networks.

Copeland said Barack and Michelle Obama had organized 130 fundraising events in just a quarter of the 2008 Democratic primary, events that accounted for 80 percent of their total fundraising, he said.

Copeland said Warren's strategy put even more emphasis on small donors, a potentially unstable funding stream in an area where more than a dozen candidates might try to stand out to generate those dollars.

"Operationally, it will be a very big challenge for them. It is difficult to establish a budget based on an unknown budget, "said Copeland. "It's not only that she loses a class of donors, she's also pushing them toward other operations and campaigns." It will be a long-term problem. "

Most applicants raise funds by mobilizing both modest online donors and major fundraisers, with donors able to make checks up to $ 2,800 during primary school. Candidates and campaigners can also participate in fundraising campaigns for the super PACs, a practice adopted by both Barack Obama and Donald Trump campaigns.

Since announcing their presidential candidacy, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker have all attended or announced their intention to attend expensive fundraisers in Hollywood, New York and San Francisco.

"It's bold and innovative. This is a way to show that you will not be bought for a particular interest and that every voice counts, said Adam Bozzi, communications director of the End Citizens United pro-reform group. "When people come to the presidency, linking fundraising to their time and attention is something that has been going on for a long time."

Competing campaigns have had different motivations: in conversations with POLITICO, assistants from several competing candidates said Warren's campaign was probably a maneuver to protect himself from low fundraising after launch, and noted that Warren could still be distorted collecting funds from major donors. No candidate officially spoke of Warren's announcement.

"It's a blatant wait to reduce expectations" around Warren's fundraiser, said an assistant Democratic presidential campaigner. "If it 's a values ​​- based decision, it may seem odd to say that it will start making a lot of money again in the general election."