An instructive post from Patrick Ruffini re: the steady reversal of which comes first, the fundraising or the mass marketing campaign:

Traditional campaigns usually unfold in this order:

1. Raise money and stockpile resources so that you can afford to get your message out.
2. Spend the money to get your message out and gather support, usually through expensive mediums like TV, radio, or mail.

Barack Obama flipped this model in 2008. Yes, he was able to raise impressive sums early on from bundlers like David Geffen and Penny Pritzker. Considering how the campaign unfolded, this round of funding can be likened to angel investors in a startup: they give enough to buy the pencils and fund operations for a few months, but the company is ultimately expected to sink or swim of its own weight by selling direct to the consumer.

In this case, selling direct to the consumer meant money and volunteer hours, not just votes. Fundraising was not the province of a few bundlers or a few closely guarded lists or of a few direct mail tricks, but of an innovative campaign that fused fundraising, volunteer activity, and vote-getting.

Locally, we've already seen an example of the dynamic in action: Dino Rossi's organic, grassroots base of donors, which did much to fuel his 2008 campaign.

The ultimate point is that even though campaigns vary greatly depending on the size of the race, election cycle reality, opposition, etc., successful campaigns must be harnessing a broad base of support early and often - using every means of communication possible.

Effective high dollar fundraising will still be a critical element of the successful campaign, especially down at the level of, say, legislative races where grassroots enthusiasm (and contributions) are often less prevalent than federal or statewide races. Nevertheless, Ruffini encapsulates a new paradigm candidates at all levels need to embrace.