Democratic House campaigns in battleground districts across the country have seen a surge of donations — and new donors — in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision last month overturning Roe v. Wade.
Why it matters: The sudden influx is a bright spot for Democrats in what has otherwise been a difficult campaign marked by rising inflation and costs, potentially validating a strategy of focusing more heavily on abortion on the campaign trail.
Driving the news: New York House candidatePat Ryan raised over $1 million in the six weeks since announcing his campaign, nearly 40% of which came in the week following the ruling, Axios has learned.
Ryan, who is running in the August special election in New York’s 19th District, told Axios his race is “the first competitive congressional election in a post-Roe world” and that he plans to put abortion at “the center” of his campaign.
His best fundraising day of the campaign was June 26, the day after the ruling, followed by June 29 and 30.
By the numbers: Incumbent Democrats defending swing districts have seen similar surges, driven by increased digital engagement from grassroots donors.
Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) raised over $1 million between April and June, her best quarter of the cycle, her spokesperson Sarah Carlson told Axios. Wild’s online contributions from new donors more than doubled after the ruling.
Rep. Angie Craig’s (D-Minn.) campaign saw a three-fold increase in text donations and a 60% increase in donations generated by Facebook ads.
Rep. Sharice Davids (D-Kan.) raised $100,000 in June, her best fundraising month of the cycle — driven by $20,000 raised from texts alone after the ruling.
What they’re saying: “We are seeing an overwhelming response from supporters who feel strongly … that holding the House is critical in the fight for reproductive rights,” Carlson told Axios in a statement.
The big picture: The fundraising boon goes beyond House campaigns. Candidates up and down the ballot have seen their coffers swell, as have party committees.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, for instance, “broke cycle-long records” with its online content immediately following the ruling, according to a DSCC aide. The day of the ruling and the day after were its best and second-best days of the cycle, respectively.
The Democratic Governors Association said it raised $1 million in the week following the Dobbs decision — 10% of its overall fundraising in the first six months of 2022.
A total of $89 million was raised on ActBlue, the go-to online fundraising platform for Democrats, between 10:30am on June 24 — the day of the decision — and the end of June, spokesperson Mike Naple told Axios.
Reality check: Money may not be enough to save Democrats. House Democrats, for example, crushed the GOP in fundraising in 2020 only to lose seats.
Republicans still consistently lead, albeit narrowly, in generic ballotpolling, and election forecasters like FiveThirtyEight have them as the clear favorites.
The Biden administration considered declaring a public health emergency to preserve broad access to abortion services following the US Supreme Court’s decision last month to overturn Roe v. Wade, but officials ultimately decided against the move, according to people familiar with the matter.
The possible declaration was discussed between top officials at the Health and Human Services Department and the White House ahead of a June 28 news conference by Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, the people said. But officials set aside the idea due to concerns the impact wouldn’t justify an inevitable legal battle.
[…]
Had the federal government declared a public health emergency, Becerra’s department would have gained new powers for an indefinite period. For example, abortion rights advocates say Becerra could have ordered that medication abortion can be prescribed across state lines, or even moved to shield doctors from legal liability for performing abortions in states that outlaw the procedure.
But White House aides and some HHS officials were concerned the declaration wouldn’t make a substantial impact, that it might be seen merely as a public relations maneuver and that it would draw lawsuits, according to the people familiar with the matter.
>But officials set aside the idea due to concerns the impact wouldn’t justify an inevitable legal battle.
>But White House aides and some HHS officials were concerned the declaration wouldn’t make a substantial impact, that it might be seen merely as a public relations maneuver and that it would draw lawsuits, according to the people familiar with the matter.
“Instead of making some impact and utilizing our resources to defend what we claim to be an essential constitutional right we decided to do nothing instead.
