For the year just passed, the RNC brought in nearly $102 million -- give or take a few hundred thousand -- and had $34 million in the bank. The Democratic National Committee raised $51 million in 2005 but showed $5.5 million on hand at the end of the year.This is the largest gap between the parties in more than a decade.
This issue is particularly troubling given the DNC traded in Terry Mcauliffe (great fundraiser/poor strategist) for Howard "then we're going to Nova Scotia!" Dean. Dean had his baggage; but was supposed to infuse the party with a focus on policy AND raise money. Now, there seems to be neither. We do know that Dean has been building a local presence in all 50 states and perhaps the money is all in the state's control - I wasn't able to find any information to confirm or deny this theory.
So, is the DNC better off today than it was 1 year ago? For me, it's hard to tell how much gains in Virginia and (somewhat) New Jersey are more in reaction to Bush or influenced/lead by the party itself. But if the DNC doesn't issue a corrective statement on this article (or some serious spin) this doesn't bode well for the Dean administration.