When is it OK for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to hand out large chunks of cash to Democratic voters -- and specifically to convention voters (also known as delegates)? When they're superdelegates.
And given the long-prevailing media narrative that superdelegates are somehow beholden to or likely to coalesce around Mrs. Clinton (and I argue over at Robert Emmet that the chances of superdelegates in smoke-filled rooms swinging the election are pretty slim) and one might be surprised which candidate has been most generous with the superdelegates.
Before going to the numbers, there's a proviso that all money-in-politics stories should have: The figures are fascinating but only partly illuminating. It's simplistic to say that you can draw a causal relationship through financial figures alone. One needs be careful not to read too much into these sorts of figures... but they do illuminate somewhat and are worth looking at.
Here's what we know, thanks to the Center for Responsive Politics' newsletter, the Capital Eye:
Clinton and Obama have collectively given at least $904,200 to superdelegates. (Here's how it works: The superdelegates are pols, as are the two presidential contenders; all have piles of campaign cash, some in their election accounts some in leadership PACs; Obama and Clinton can and have given some of that campaign money to their colleagues.)
Perhaps surprisingly, Obama has been the most generous in this regard. From Capital Eye:
Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.
As for Mrs. Clinton:
Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.
As previously noted, one must be careful in drawing a causal line. (And that goes both ways -- one cannot assume that Clinton or Obama gave the money because of their superdelegate status.) But...
Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. The one exception: Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, whose endorsement of Obama was highly publicized, received more from Clinton than from the Illinois senator--$10,000 compared to $4,200. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money. Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama--and all committed to Clinton.
One interesting question unanswered here is: When did they give the money? Did Obama's giving suddenly tick up in recent months as the superdelegate "issue" sprung up? Has Clinton's? Unknown, but fun numbers over which to chew.