Making your political donation count

[Ogre Mage]

If you are interested in partisan control of the U.S. Senate and your funds are limited (i.e. you are a small donor), which do you think is the more effective political donation -- giving to individual candidates or giving to the DSCC/NRSC?

[Miles]

I've almost always given to individual candidates.

[Vega]

This cycle I've donated exclusively to the candidates. In 2012 I gave to DSCC, though.

[windjammer]

If you are interested in partisan control of the U.S. Senate and your funds are limited (i.e. you are a small donor), which do you think is the more effective political donation -- giving to individual candidates or giving to the DSCC/NRSC?

Probably the DSCC, better coordination!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Individual candidates.  Let's say Miles gave to the DSCC and Eraserhead gave to the DCCC.  The DCCC might spend the money on some likely Dem seat in Oregon while the DSCC might spend the money in NH for all anyone knows.  Giving to candidates cuts out the middle man and ensures the money goes to a race you care about.

[Bacon King]

Individual candidates.  Let's say Miles gave to the DSCC and Eraserhead gave to the DCCC.  The DCCC might spend the money on some likely Dem seat in Oregon while the DSCC might spend the money in NH for all anyone knows.  Giving to candidates cuts out the middle man and ensures the money goes to a race you care about.

Yeah but the entire premise of the question is that you're more concerned about overall partisan control of Congress more than any specific race you might care about.

I think individual contributions are more beneficial, assuming you can do the research required to distribute your contributions effectively. The DSCC's primary benefit is that they can allocate their money based on information not accessible to you, such as internal polling, fundraising figures for the current quarter, estimated GOTV strength, and even things like focus group results. However, you can still direct your money to an important race with the information you can find online; using that incomplete data you might decide on a race that may only be #5 or so instead of #1 on the DSCC target list, but you'll inevitably still pick somewhere important enough. With this accuracy I'd argue that your donation is better made to the candidate's campaign rather than the DSCC, because the direct expenditures are more easily coordinated and therefore a bit more effective.

[Ogre Mage]

Yeah but the entire premise of the question is that you're more concerned about overall partisan control of Congress more than any specific race you might care about.

Right.  Obviously if the Colorado Senate race is most important to you, then you would give to Mark Udall or Cory Gardner before giving to the DSCC/NRSC.  My question was more for donors who are more concerned with the "big picture" of partisan control.  There are close races in every cycle but this year there seems to be more close Senate races than usual.

[Indy Texas]

Party committees obviously spend that money how they best see fit. You may not necessarily agree with their strategy. For example, a "base" Republican giving to the NRSC in 2006 probably wouldn't have liked their money going to a liberal like Lincoln Chafee who ended up losing anyway.

Donating to an individual campaign doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless it's one of the handful of close races in the country, particularly if it's in a small state like Alaska or Montana where your donation would have proportionately more impact. If you're giving money to a campaign for a safe seat, it's because you want post-election access for your industry/pet project.