So recruiting more paper candidates is the recommended way to increase LPCA revenue? :-)
A good chunk of this data can be explained by the LPCA decreasing its ED salary spending by tens of thousands per year even as the LPTX was increasing its ED salary spending by tens of thousands per year. While it’s indeed interesting to compare revenue (which Wes here calls “income”), it would be even more interesting to answer George’s question about what the money was spent on. In the first few years of this decade, the LPCA spent heavily on fundraising efforts that ended up not being able to turn a profit. The massive scale of those operations was not necessarily a good thing, while the LPTX’s alleged absence of revenue in 2000-2001 does not necessarily indicate a non-existent party.
Instead of raw revenue independent of any expense context, some more-relevant metrics would be 1) RegLibs, 2) dues payers, 3) revenue minus overhead (e.g. salary) and fundraising expenses — i.e. spending on actual politics, 4) vote totals of all L candidates, and 5) vote totals of winning L candidates. The LPCA has indeed been declining somewhat on the first two, but I’d guess we’re doing respectably on the third, and have been doing quite well on the last two.