Gillibrand’s (Lack of) Spending in 2018 Offers Hints of 2020

CONCORD, N.H. — The last time that Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was on the ballot for re-election, she poured $8 million into a summer television-advertising spree en route to a landslide victory.

This year, she has invested zero dollars on television and has spent only a fraction of what she did in 2012. Gillibrand, D-N.Y., has instead methodically conserved her campaign cash, building a $10.7 million federal treasury that is among the largest in the country; a campaign bank account that she could use to jump-start a bid for the White House in 2020.

The lack of spending is just one sign of Gillibrand’s possible trajectory: On Thursday, she stumped in New Hampshire to rally support for Molly Kelly, the Democratic candidate for governor in one of the first two states that will kick off the presidential nominating contest.

Gillibrand’s visit followed recent appearances in Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania, where she also campaigned primarily for female candidates ahead of the November elections. She has so far essentially ignored her own Republican challenger, Chele Farley, a finance executive and first-time candidate.

But perhaps even more so than her multistate campaign stops, it is Gillibrand’s management of her Senate campaign account that reveals the arc of her ambition. As of the end of September, she had accumulated $1 million more than she had at the beginning of the year. Candidates seeking re-election typically spend down their treasury, not grow it.

“I don’t feel I need to spend that money in that way right now because of the type of campaign we’re running,” Gillibrand said in an interview in New Hampshire. She framed her frugality as a sign of a modernity — a campaign focused on grassroots and online organizing — while insisting that she is “solely focused” on her re-election.

“I want to be senator for the next six years,” she said.

Much of Gillibrand’s spending has been on the kind of list-building activities that are as likely to pay dividends in 2020 as they are this fall, investing heavily in digital advertising that cultivates new email addresses and donors. More than 40 percent of her spending in 2018 has been on Facebook advertising, according to an analysis of records from the Federal Election Commission and Pathmatics, an ad tracking firm.

Gillibrand is not the only possible Democratic presidential contender spending judiciously on her 2018 re-election. In Massachusetts, Sen. Elizabeth Warren ended September with $15 million in the bank; like Gillibrand, she has $1 million more than she had at the end of 2017. Warren raised $3.5 million in the most recent quarter and spent $4 million; Gillibrand raised and spent $1.4 million.

Warren and Gillibrand are sitting atop the most money among would-be 2020 Democratic candidates. (Beto O’Rourke, the fundraising phenomenon and U.S. Senate candidate in Texas, is expected to empty his current $22 million campaign chest in his uphill bid to unseat Sen. Ted Cruz.) While presidential campaigns are big-money ventures, the so-called hard dollars that candidates directly control are often in exceedingly short supply, especially in sprawling, multicandidate fields as 2020 is expected to be for Democrats.

Gillibrand’s $10.7 million in the bank is about as much as Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican, raised during his entire 2016 presidential campaign and far more than Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Mike Huckabee, all Republicans, were able to collect.

“People are wise to try to raise early and preserve as much as possible,” said Danny Diaz, who was the campaign manager for Jeb Bush’s 2016 presidential campaign, which eventually ran short of donors and had to make cuts. Of Gillibrand’s $10 million and Warren’s $15 million, Diaz said: “That’s not nothing. That’s the seed money starting a campaign.”

Farley, who has raised $1.2 million overall and had $152,000 remaining at the start of this month, has tried to make Gillibrand’s 2020 plans an issue. “She’s focusing on issues that are relevant for running for president,” Farley said in an interview, adding, “I’m only interested in representing the people of New York.” On Sunday, Gillibrand and Farley had been scheduled for their lone debate, but Gillibrand withdrew late Friday after labor leaders called for a boycott of the media sponsor. She said she was seeking an alternate sponsor or date before the election, although Farley said she had “chickened out.”

Polls show Gillibrand far ahead. Gillibrand was a heavy front-runner in 2012, too, when she dispatched her opponent, Wendy Long, claiming more than 72 percent of the vote to win her first full term. She had won her first election in 2010 to finish the term of Hillary Clinton, after being appointed to replace Clinton in 2009.

In 2012, Gillibrand spent $9.3 million in the third quarter, compared with $1.4 million in the third quarter of 2018, Federal Election Commission records show.

“I promise no voter in New York is saying, ‘I wish more campaign ads were on the air,'” said Glen Caplin, an adviser to Gillibrand, adding that the campaign was continuously evaluating the state of the race. Her campaign has taped a television ad in case it is needed.

“We’re trying to do it a little differently,” Gillibrand explained. “What that looks like is I’ve done 16 town halls; I’ve been to all 62 counties; I’m trying to really create a grassroots-oriented campaign and a modern campaign.”

Some of Gillibrand’s limited spending has been geared to an audience far beyond New York.

In recent weeks, she has bought Facebook ads nationally to raise money for Democratic senators and Senate candidates, including Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona, Claire McCaskill in Missouri and Jacky Rosen in Nevada. (Donations are split between Gillibrand’s campaign and the candidates, while her campaign harvests valuable new donor contacts.)

She is running other ad programs to expand her database of supporters: In late September, a series of Facebook ads, which also ran nationally, featured a one-question survey: “Do you approve of President Trump?” Pathmatics said she spent $183,000 on one such ad.

A study by academics of Facebook ad data compiled by Pathmatics showed that Gillibrand spent $1.5 million on Facebook ads through August, but only 9 percent of it in New York. In contrast, 82 percent of spending on Facebook ads by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who is also up for re-election, was within her state.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is also on the ballot this year, spent only 1 percent for ads in his home state, Vermont, the study showed. The heavily favored Sanders has also spent little on his re-election, ending September with $8.8 million in his campaign account, although he is not expected to face the same financial pressures as other candidates if he runs again for president because he already has an expansive donor base. His 2016 campaign was powered by more than $230 million in mostly small contributions.

Gillibrand, Warren and Sanders would all enjoy one other financial advantage if they run right after getting re-elected: They can not only transfer everything left over from their Senate campaign to a presidential committee but also tap again every past donor, even those who have given the legal maximum of $5,400 in the 2018 cycle, because it would be a new campaign.

Gillibrand remains far lesser known than either of her Senate colleagues. At a phone bank in Concord, New Hampshire, some volunteers knew her enough to rattle off her advocacy against sexual assault in the military. But others had only seen her for the first time on television contesting the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Most understood the subtext of her first campaign visit to the state. “She wouldn’t be in New Hampshire if she wasn’t interested,” said Carrie Thompson, a teacher from nearby Hopkinton, New Hampshire, who was making calls. Earlier in the day, Gillibrand had walked into one Concord coffee shop virtually unnoticed. But at another, she was tracked down by an excited fan who had been searching for her all across town.

“I literally heard you were at coffee shops and I tried, like, all of them,” said Josie Pinto, who said she had recently moved to New Hampshire from New York.

After a couple of minutes of small talk, hugs and photos, Pinto thanked Gillibrand for her visit. “I hope to hear more from you. Beyond the midterms?” she said, her voice rising tentatively and hopefully. “Maybe? Maybe you’ll be back to New Hampshire?”

Gillibrand replied, “I appreciate you very much.”