Sun Sentinel Palm Beach Edition
Fundraising rematch has lost its spark
Canova off to anemic financial start in campaign against Wasserman Schultz
The name Debbie Wasserman Schultz once was fundraising gold — generating millions of dollars for challenger Tim Canova’s effort to oust her from Congress.
No more. Campaign filings show Canova is off to an anemic financial start in his rematch with Wasserman Schultz.
He had just $5,157 cash in his campaign account at the beginning of 2018, the latest disclosure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show. Canova also reported debts of $35,000, mostly personal cash he lent to his campaign.
Wasserman Schultz had more than 75 times as much cash on hand at the beginning of the election year — $389,895 — and no debt.
The candidates’ financial standing is far different from 2016, the first time Canova challenged Wasserman Schultz in the Democratic primary in the Broward/Miami-Dade county 23rd Congressional District.
In the first 12 weeks of the last campaign, Canova raised $538,000. He had $461,000 cash in the bank on March 31, 2016. In the first 28 weeks of his current campaign, Federal Election Commission filings show Canova has raised $150,000.
Wasserman Schultz, serving her seventh term, is still “definitely a very polarizing figure,” said Kevin Wagner, a political scientist at Florida Atlantic University. But, largely because of President Donald Trump, Wagner said the political environment approaching the 2018 elections is far different than it was in 2016.
In the last election, Canova harnessed anti-establishment progressives and supporters of U.S. Sen.
Bernie Sanders, the unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination to finance his challenge to Wasserman Schultz, who was chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee until July 2016.
Sanders supporters chafed at what they saw as the national Democratic Party tilting the scales for Hillary Clinton, a feeling backed up by stolen DNC emails. Sanders and Canova supporters blamed Wasserman Schultz; she has steadfastly denied she personally sanctioned favoritism in the presidential primaries.
Canova raised $3.8 million in 2016, an unusually large figure for someone challenging an incumbent member of Congress in the same party, that helped him earn credibility and publicity — before losing the August 2016 primary to Wasserman Schultz.
Wasserman Schultz raised more than $2.7 million in 2016, less than Canova, but she benefited from money her campaign had in the bank at the beginning of the year and from more than $640,000 spent on her behalf by Patriot Majority, a super political action committee.
In the current election season, “the energy on the left that we’ve seen so far is more anti-Trump than anti-Democratic establishment,” Wagner said. “It’s not about Debbie Wasserman Schultz. It’s all about Trump.”
A dramatic difference between the 2018 and 2016 efforts is in the total amount of money from contributors whose donations are so small they don’t have to be itemized on federal reports. Those small contributions fueled Canova’s last effort.
Canova took in $46,700 in small contributions in the last quarter of 2017 and $120,000 for the entire year.
Wasserman Schultz took in $41,200 in small contributions in the fourth quarter of 2017 and $224,000 for the entire year.
In the first 12 weeks of his last candidacy, Canova took in $405,000 in small contributions.
Sean Phillippi, a Democratic political strategist who specializes in data analytics, said the numbers prove Canova can’t recreate the circumstances that got him 43 percent of the vote in the 2016 primary.
Of the millions Canova raised in 2016, Phillippi said “most of that was from people who supported Senator Sanders and were mad at Debbie Wasserman Schultz because they thought she was biased. It wasn’t money in support of Tim Canova, it was money against Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and that money’s not there any more.”
Phillippi volunteered for Wasserman Schultz’s 2016 campaign but has never been a paid staffer for her. Wasserman Schultz’s campaign declined to comment on her fundraising or Canova’s.
Canova, responding to questions via email, said Wasserman Schultz has an overall financial advantage because she takes money from political action committees.
“Wasserman Schultz is bought and paid for by those corporate interests. My campaign represents the people of Florida’s 23rd Congressional District, not huge corporations and Wall Street banks from out of state,” he said. (In 2016, 90 percent of Canova’s contributions came from outside Florida.)
In his emails, Canova also said his campaign’s current financial status is largely attributable to his monthslong legal battle with the Broward Supervisor of Elections Office.
Canova has cast doubt on the results of the August 2016 primary, and his current campaign has pursued access to ballots from that race.
He said the campaign “invested a considerable amount of our resources on our ballot inspection efforts” and “paid significant sums to retain elections experts.” Campaign finance reports show $14,704 spent on legal fees, mostly to the law firm Broad and Casse, and $5,967 in fees to the Supervisor of Elections Office. Canova said the efforts diverted money and staff time that otherwise would have gone into fundraising operations.
Overall, the reports show Canova raised $61,700 in the fourth quarter of 2017 and spent $71,800. Wasserman Schultz raised $265,000 and spent $185,000.