Instead, the debate hosted by Tucker Carlson and Grover Norquist at the National Press Club in Washington resembled a job interview. Candidates listed what “skills” they have for the position, how their past experiences would help them lead the RNC and how they would do the job (all interspersed with the occasional awkward joke). Their interlocutors repeatedly asked them to answer questions “specifically,” which they generally did not.

Though Norquist reminded the audience that there was “no job description,” being a party chair is really about one thing — raising money. The candidates all said how they could raise money to defeat President Obama in 2012. Priebus said he would spend “five or six” hours on the phone everyday with major donors, saying that the RNC needed to raise $400 million to defeat the president. “It’s all about fundraising,” said Anuzis in his opening.

“We don’t do policy, we do politics,” said Chairman Steele. “You don’t get to dictate the terms of policy to the (House) speaker, or the minority leader. If you get it wrong, You’ll be reminded, ‘you don’t do policy,’” he ended, drawing the loudest applause from the crowd for the chairman,

Steele, the center of debate, knows whereof he speaks. Soon after he was elected as RNC chairman, he said — in comments that were anathema to most Republicans — that abortion was an “individual choice” to be decided by the states in a May 2009 interview with GQ. In the debate, Steele — who is often animated on cable news shows — appeared subdued. According to a Politico report this morning, Steele does not have the votes from the 168-member RNC to stay on for a second term.

In the one exception to the lack of debate in the debate, Steele defended his record as RNC chairman when Wagner attacked his lack of funding for GOTV operations along the lines of a memo by former Steele aide — and former RNC candidate himself before dropping out — Gentry Collins. “We didn’t have 72-hour program — we had a 12-month program. We won 64 house seats, 21 state legislatures flipped.” He maintained that the program was done differently. “We won in all fifty states this year. And that’s the goal, winning. Find me a state that didn’t have a winning election.”

Despite the Republicans’ success in the midterm elections, the RNC is $15 million in debt; reports indicate that it has already spent lavishly for its 2012 convention in Tampa; and it has had to delay payment to convention vendors. Steele meekly suggested at the outset that the debt might be “refinanced” and the party would have to “hunker down, get the money right, get the dollars right.”

The race for RNC chair is of course, not an open election — 168 members choose the chairman in a race that often has multiple ballots — but Priebus appears to be the front-runner, according to vote counts. He also acted like it. He repeatedly spoke of the need to work with the conservative movement and the tea party. He also talked like a tea partier, sounding the alarm of American decline. “We are about to fall off a fiscal cliff,” he said in his opening. “We need to save our country, and in turn to save our party, and take back the White House,” he said, often repeating the need to “save our country” more than any other candidate.

Priebus also had huge success in normally-blue Wisconsin in 2010. Plastics magnate Ron Johnson won his first election, defeating Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold by painting him as a Washington insider. Longtime House Appropriations Chair David Obey (D-Wisc.) retired and his seat was taken by Republican Sean Duffy, who was previously a cast member on MTV’s “The Real World.” Wisconsin’s Republicans took over the governorship, both legislatures and picked up an additional U.S. House seat.

Ultimately, the RNC chairmanship race is shaping up a lot like the Republican narrative of the 2010 elections — Priebus, talking the language of the tea party, looks poised to defeat the fiscally-irresponsible incumbent Michael Steele on January 14.

Gentry Collins, one of the first candidates to publicly challenge current chairman Michael Steele, has ended his campaign to claim his former boss’ position. Collins — a former Iowa GOP operative — made a splash with his entrance in the race, as he had served the RNC as political director during Steele’s term leading the party. Before he declared himself a candidate, Collins resigned from his RNC position with a scathing letter attacking Steele’s tenure leading the GOP. But since entering the field, Collins has struggled to gain support from RNC delegates, with only three members having publicly pledged their support to him before he ended his bid.

Though Steele now has one fewer opponent, his path to reelection appears to have closed. Politico approached the RNC delegates and found that over half intend to oppose Steele when the GOP votes on Jan. 14.

A weeklong canvass of the party’s governing board by POLITICO revealed 88 members who have decided not to vote for Steele, either opting to support one of his opponents or simply ruling out Steele as a choice in the race.

With 165 voting members, a candidate needs to claim support from at least 85 delegates to claim the RNC chair position, a number that now appears completely out of Steele’s grasp. Only 15 RNC members have said that they intend to vote for the current chairman.

So if not Steele, who is likely to claim the chairmanship? Former Wisconsin Republican Chairman Reince Priebus is the apparent leader in the race for the moment, with 30 delegates already publicly pledging their support. But since the RNC chairman is chosen through multiple rounds of balloting until one candidate secures half the votes, the battle to win the election may hinge more on which candidate positions him or herself as the second choice of the most delegates. However, the other candidates do have a significant amount of ground to make up if they are to equal Priebus’ level of support. Former RNC Co-Chair Ann Wagner currently sits as the second-place challenger to the incumbent, with 12 public supporters, followed by former Michigan GOP Chair Saul Anuzis with 10 backers and Maria Cino with only six supporters.

The candidates will meet in Washington, D.C., Monday in a debate moderated by Grover Norquist and Tucker Carlson.

As of Monday, Priebus was publicly supported by 22 voting RNC delegates, compared to only 12 behind Steele. Former Michigan Republican chair Saul Anuzis is breathing right down Steele’s neck with 11 pledges delegates, and former RNC co-chair Ann Wagner is in the mix with 10 supporters.

With the Jan. 14 vote for the next chairman fast approaching, over one-third of the RNC delegates have publicly stated their voting intentions. As I noted two weeks ago, Steele’s deficit in supporters is likely closer to the sum of all the challengers’ delegates rather than just Priebus’ alone, as those RNC members have already decided to back someone besides the incumbent Steele and will be likely to switch their allegiance to one of the other challengers once their initial favorite drops from the ballot.

The Hotline also reported that Priebus has managed to pull away a key Steele ally for his corner:

On Sunday, California national committee member Shawn Steel made public his decision to back Wisconsin Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus. The Californian had been a key member of Steele’s kitchen cabinet and one of the incumbent chairman’s top defenders.

The defection, rumored for a week, is seen as a major blow to Steele’s dwindling re-election hopes.

CNN reports:

Ann Wagner, one of six candidates seeking the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, is promising not to support Chairman Michael Steele under any circumstance if she happens to come up short in her bid to lead the organization.

The former Missouri GOP Chairwoman and onetime Ambassador to Luxembourg told CNN Monday that she will “absolutely not” endorse Steele or tell her supporters to do so if she fails to make it to the final round of what is likely to be a multi-ballot election come January.

[...]

“I would ask any of the candidates out there to not to move any of their support to Michael Steele, regardless of the outcome of any one individual,” she said.

While affirming that she is “in the race to win it,” Wagner said numerous committee members have, in the course of their conversations, asked her not to back Steele if she fails to advance to the late stages of the election.

“I have made that commitment to many of the men and women who have asked me that,” Wagner said. “They want a new direction, a new leadership. That’s my commitment.”

Wagner’s opposition could be a sign of things to come among the other candidates challenging Steele’s position atop the party. As TAI detailed last week, the other candidates have largely entered the field to pick up the anti-Steele voice of the party.

According to an updated whip count of RNC voting members from the Hotline on Monday, Reince Priebus has opened an even wider lead on Steele. The Wisconsin GOPer has 16 RNC delegates who have publicly pledged their support, compared to only 12 for Steele. Wagner is then tied with former Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis with 10 delegates each.

[h/t The Corner]

According to a whip count from The Hotline, 13 RNC delegates have publicly declared their support for Priebus, whereas Steele has 12 official backers. That one vote separation may be an essential tie, but it bodes poorly for Steele’s reelection hopes. Eighteen delegates have committed to supporting another candidate: nine have said they will vote for former Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis, seven for former RNC co-chair Ann Wagner, and two for former RNC political director Gentry Collins.

The party chairman is not chosen in a first-past-the-post vote, the way general U.S. elections operate. Instead, RNC members take a series of votes, eliminating candidates in each round until one person receives a majority of the votes. With 185 members, that means a candidate must secure 85 supporters to win the post.

The challenge for Steele is that many of those backing the other candidates such as Collins or Wagner have already decided to buck the current party chairman, so they will be more likely to support another candidate if their first choice is knocked out of the running.

There is already an “anybody but Steele” sentiment circulating in certain circles of the Republican Party. Major Republican donors threatened to abandon fundraising for the party, according to Politico. In a separate article, Politico reported that Mike Duncan, Steele’s predecessor at the helm of the RNC, has reached out to candidates to suggest that the challengers form “a united front” to oppose Steele’s reelection.

Priebus’s list of public supporters indicates that he will be the most likely candidate to end up on the final ballot alongside Steele. He has wrapped up support from the Wisconsin RNC delegation, and has received backing from across the country. Most importantly, Henry Barbour has publicly stated he intends to vote for Priebus. Henry is the nephew of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former RNC chairman whose voice continues to carry significant weight among the party’s elite, especially in fundraising matters, which at the end of the day is the primary function of a party chair.

The speculation over Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele’s future with the group will come to an end tonight. At 7:30 p.m. EST, he is scheduled to speak with members of the RNC during a conference call. Fox News’ sources indicate that Steele will announce that he will not seek a second term during the call, but the chairman has remained coy about his decision. The next RNC chair will be selected when the organization’s members meet in the middle of January.

Steele’s two years as chairman of the party been filled with both positives and negatives for his image. In terms of results, Steele has overseen two of the most successful years for the GOP; when he took the helm in early 2009 the party was in a state of crisis after Barack Obama swept Democrats to wide majorities in both chambers of Congress, but the GOP regrouped in 2010 and won historic margins in Congress for the midterm elections.

At the same time, Steele himself has been plagued by a continual series of gaffes that distracted from his other work, and the party closes 2010 with its future weighed by over $15 million in debt. Though the RNC chairman is not selected by any form of popular vote, rank and file Republicans have turned against Steele. Almost half of Republican voters would oppose Steele if he ran for the chairmanship again according to a recent poll.

A host of other candidates are already in the race no matter what Steele announces Monday night. Wisconsin Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus is projected as an early front runner. He has already wrapped up the support of Wisconsin’s GOP and is backed by influential Mississippi Gov. and former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour. Also among those running: former Michigan Republican chairman Saul Anuzis, Gentry Collins who was the RNC’s political director until he resigned last month with a scathing letter against Steele, and former RNC co-chair Ann Wagner.

Those currently running have fairly low public profiles, much like Steele before he won the chairmanship in 2009. That could come back to haunt the party, though, as these individuals’ past ties will be subjected to greater public inspection if they win the chairmanship. Anuzis, for example, has defended Young Americans for Freedom, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center termed a hate group over its white nationalist statements.

If suspicions that Steele will not run again are confirmed, other possible candidates may be willing to enter the race. Former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman has been speculated about as a possible candidate earlier this year. He recently stated that he would not oppose Steele but did not deny his interest in running if the current chairman steps aside. Coleman — who helped found the conservative nonprofit American Action Network after he lost his Senate election in 2008 — would likely have the highest name recognition of any candidate if he chooses to run.

Mike Duncan, Steele’s predecessor as RNC Chair and current chairman of American Crossroads, is weighing whether to run for his old position. American Crossroads was the biggest outside player in the 2010 midterm elections, becoming a symbol for undisclosed spending after Citizens United. Duncan would be a major player if he puts his hat into the ring. The RNC chair is primarily responsible for party fundraising, so Duncan’s success leading American Crossroads would augur well for his ability to lead the RNC out of its debt problem as they seek to reclaim the White House in 2012.

Anuzis told The New York Times last week he was considering a challenge. Now, on his blog “That’s Saul Folks,” Anuzis lays out his reasoning for seeking to unseat one-term Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

[T]o be a force, the RNC must change and that requires new leadership at the top. I am offering you an alternative, a choice, a different approach to the leadership and stewardship of our party.

Chairman Steele’s record speaks for itself. He has his way of doing things. I have mine.

We will not win in 2012 if the RNC is not able to provide the financial resources we need to support the organizational efforts and ground games of our state parties. Without a fully funded Victory program we will be overwhelmed by the efforts of the unions, the Obama campaign and all their allies.

Even though we won an overall victory in 2010 we lost some heartbreaking statewide races in places like Illinois, Colorado, West Virginia, Washington and Nevada, and countless congressional and legislative districts because the other side had a better turnout effort.

Think about your own state. Did some terrific Republican candidate work their hearts out, yet fall short by a handful of votes on Election Day? Now ask yourself: if the RNC had properly funded the Victory program in your state, would that candidate have been a winner? Would that candidate have benefited from a robust 72-hour program with ground troops sweeping in for the final weekend?

Todd Heywood writes for The Michigan Messenger.

The Republican National Committee, headed by Chairman Michael Steele, is losing influence as interest groups increase their independent spending. (Flickr: pamhule)

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, many groups, from independent political action committees to the Republican National Committee, decided to test the waters and file cases against the Federal Elections Commission arguing that they, too, should enjoy the ability to solicit unlimited donations for spending on specific, non-coordinated campaign activities. In the case of the RNC, the group sought to reverse the longstanding “soft money” ban in McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation that prevented the parties from raising unlimited sums of money for “party building” and other activities not directly related to elections. While the challenge failed, the three-judge panel that ruled against the RNC did express worry about the implications of a growing divide between the fundraising capacities of outside groups and the traditional party committees.

[Economy1] “Under current law,” the panel wrote in a footnote to its opinion, “outside groups — unlike candidates and political parties — may receive unlimited donations both to advocate in favor of federal candidates and to sponsor issue ads. We recognize the RNC’s concern about this disparity, which, it argues, discriminates against the national political parties in political and legislative debates. But that is an argument for the Supreme Court or Congress.”

In the absence of any such intervention in Congress, however, that potential disparity is looking increasingly like a reality. After countless election cycles in which the traditional party committees — the RNC, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and their Democratic counterparts — dominated the landscape of independent expenditures on behalf of candidates, they are being substantially outgunned this time around by a nexus of outside spending outfits that represent a variety of special interests. According to data compiled in mid-October, 59 percent of all independent expenditures are coming from non-party-aligned groups — a substantial reversal from the previous midterm election cycle in 2006, when party committees accounted for 82 percent of all spending on such ads.

This election cycle, the bulk of independent expenditures — particularly among conservative groups — have in many ways mimicked the former role of the now-enfeebled RNC. As of Oct. 20, conservative outside groups have combined to spend over $99 million on ads to support Republicans and attack Democrats, more than twice as much as the NRSC and the NRCC. And the biggest conservative non-party players — like American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, the 60-Plus Association, and Americans for Job Security — are linked both to each other and the Bush-era GOP by operatives such as Bush advisers Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, who informally advise and raise funds for the groups.

Election experts and campaign lawyers argue that the changed landscape has broad implications for the future of how elections are fought and won. Fueled by the anonymity afforded by the tax status of many outside groups on one side and the laws enforcing tight fundraising limits for the parties on the other, the shift in the landscape threatens to weaken the party committees’ ability to enforce discipline over the messaging it would like to adopt and the candidates it might want to run in different races around the country. Meanwhile, the shadowy and transient nature of many new groups entering the scene has the potential to usher in a decidedly more reckless era of campaign spending, in which outside spending entities that lack the accountability and reputational considerations of the national parties continue to seize a more prominent role in the national discourse.

*****

When the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law passed in 2002, it drew praise from reform groups as a way to limit the influence of money in elections. Now, however, many admit that after lax enforcement by regulatory agencies and court rulings like Citizens United, McCain-Feingold ultimately just caused that money to migrate to groups outside the umbrella of the traditional parties. Following the law’s passage, new independent groups began exploiting various sections of the tax code in earnest to serve as an outlet for the soft-money political contributions that previously made their way to the national party coffers.

“The soft money ban, no question,” said Caleb Burns, a partner at Wiley Rein, a law firm that specializes in election law, in response to a question about the cause of the declining influence of the party committees. “You can point right to that and the congressional testimony where the rise of independent third-party groups was predicted on the floor of the U.S. Congress.” Some groups opposed the bill’s basic principle of limiting any form of campaign spending, but to others, said Burns, “it was a policy objection among people who feared we’re going to legislate away the power of political parties. I don’t have a judgment as to whether the RNC is any less powerful in relation to American Crossroads or whomever, but by hamstringing the parties in terms of the money they can raise for similar activity, that can’t not be detrimental.”

The party committees aren’t in danger of disappearing anytime soon — the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, NRSC and NRCC are all still among the top ten groups makings independent expenditures — but experts note that their decline in relative importance in funding races could affect the bridging role they often play in crafting a common message among different interest groups in the parties.

“In coming up with a platform, in our country the parties tend to be umbrella groups that prevent splintering among allies, like social and fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party, or labor unions and ethnic minorities in the Democratic Party,” said Loyola Law School professor Rick Hasen, an elections law expert. “If parties were weaker, I think that you could potentially see some shift in the two-party system, but I don’t think it would ever come to that because the people who control the rules are also a part of the parties.”

But even if the two-party system remains intact, there is evidence that the new campaign finance landscape has already come to the aid of outside candidates who were, at times, opposed by party leadership. “I think you’re seeing a perfect example on the right with the rise of the Tea Party,” said Burns.

Indeed, in many low-turnout primaries across the country, outside spending groups like the Club for Growth and the Tea Party Express were able to leverage conservative anger into upset primary victories for hyper-conservative candidates through large, last-minute infusions of cash in states like Kentucky, Alaska and Delaware. And while the Republican Party has temporarily put its internecine conflicts on hold in an effort to win majorities in Congress, the party’s divisions following the election could quickly be magnified once again by the outside spending outfits that have risen to support the different factions.

“Republicans don’t really have that consensus on where to go and who’s in charge right now,” said Paul Blumenthal, who studies political spending at the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for greater transparency in government. “Where do they line up in the Republican [presidential] primary? How do they go after each other? That’s the next story.”

And while most outside spending efforts in the current general election cycle are informally acknowledged as a sort of auxiliary wing of the Republican and Democratic parties, there’s no guarantee that this will remain the case in elections to come.

“What we’ve seen up till now is the Republican leadership in exile control the party and decide who can get elected and who can’t, but it’s conceivable another group of people or corporations not in Republican leadership could do the same thing,” said Blumenthal. “While we haven’t directly seen that in many cases, there have been some groups, like [Alaskans Standing Together] running ads for Lisa Murkowski, that are made up entirely of corporations. This is just the first instance where such a landscape exists and I’m sure it will continue to surprise us.”

*****

As to whether this infusion of outside cash at the expense of the parties’ ability to enforce discipline represents a positive or negative trend for policy debates — and democratic discourse in general — it’s simply too soon to tell. On one level, said Burns, “as much as one might disagree with a group’s message, you’re increasing the amount of public debate and bringing in more voices, and that’s always a net positive.”

Yet non-party actors tend to bring an element of recklessness to political contests as well. “Outside groups tend to be more negative because there’s less reputational costs for doing so,” said Hasen. “If the Republican Party runs an ad that’s really negative, it could hurt the party brand, but a group like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is gone by the next election cycle.”

Analyses of the nature of ads during the current election cycle by the Wesleyan Media Project bear these predictions out, at least in part. While the overall percentage of negative ads isn’t up significantly over the 2008 cycle, the Project concludes that “one effect of increased interest group activity is that outside groups are increasingly becoming the source of negativity.”

One in every three attack ads in Senate races, according to the study, is brought by an interest group — a rate that’s up about 7 percentage points from 2008. A growing division of campaign labor has emerged, in other words, in which candidates in many races — most notably Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck in Colorado — pledge to run clean campaigns while relying on outside spending outfits to perform their dirty work for them.

“Campaign financing tends to be dynamic,” said Hasen. “After every election cycle there’s often a response.” But if recent trends continue and Congress doesn’t act, it’s possible the traditional party committees could eventually find themselves in an unfamiliar place — just one special interest group among many.

CMF: How do you say that Hispanics are relevant (important) for your party, when you just approved a law in Arizona against immigrants?

STEELE: Well, let’s be clear. The actions of one state’s governor is not a reflection of an entire country, nor is it a reflection of an entire political party. The governor and the people of Arizona made a decision that they thought was in their best interest, and that’s the beauty of a republic, that’s who we are.

CMF [Cutaway]: For Steele, the Arizona law against immigrants is not a reflection of our nation, and it is not a reflection of the Republican Party.

STEELE: We hope, now that this debate is in full bloom, level heads will prevail and that we’ll reach a common sense solution with regards to immigration.

During recent debate over birthright citizenship, Steele and other Republican leaders also tried to draw a distinction between the party line and statements by some of its members. After Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called for changes to the 14th Amendment — and others, such as Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), went further with claims of “terror babies” — the RNC and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell couched discussion of the issue in terms of “birth tourism,” the documented practice of Chinese companies that arrange visas for pregnant women.

The money will be directed wholly to the RNC’s political department in order to fund Victory programs, the sources said. Those Victory programs will serve as the party’s main get-out-the-vote operation for the midterm elections.

The line of credit is not unusual, though committee sources said some in party leadership, including chairman Michael Steele, were reluctant to draw a debt. But committee members argued the money would help win back Dem-held seats; without it, argued DE national committeewoman Priscilla Rakestraw, the party would leave winnable seats on the table.

Simply taking out a line of credit does not mean the party has incurred debt right away. It gives the GOP easy access to money if needed later in the cycle; during big years for Dems, both the DCCC and the DSCC have taken out their own lines of credit in a last-minute bid to pick up seats.

Second, one of the first orders of business among Republican state party chairs in Kansas city was to approve a resolution urging the RNC Executive Committee to launch an investigation into a series of damaging leaks to the media.

Whether concerning the RNC’s amended FEC filing for unreported debt, infighting among the committee’s senior staff, or strange emails sent to foreign ambassadors to the United States, the news has dissuaded donors from giving to the committee and provided ammunition to the GOP’s opponents at a time when Republicans were hoping to go on the offensive. With the number of Republicans dissatisfied with Chairman Steele at an all-time high, however, it seems unlikely that the source(s) of the leaks will be easily plugged.