Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and other officials conveyed concern that Democratic candidates could be at a disadvantage if the contributors, many of whom had stayed on the sidelines of the 2012 campaign until now, decide not to spend money on television ads that push back against a torrent of attacks from conservative “super PACS” in the presidential election and Congressional races. The views highlighted concerns about being outgunned by outside groups raising huge amounts of money to back Republicans, and suggested a rift between Democratic leaders and some liberal donors. “The idea that these progressive groups are essentially re-creating the wheel is perplexing and troubling,” said David Krone, the chief of staff to Mr. Reid. “Why go off and build a redundant grass-roots and get-out-the-vote organization that the Obama campaign is clearly invested in?” The Democratic officials were responding to an article in The New York Times on Tuesday that the financier George Soros and other major donors had decided to avoid a head-to-head confrontation in television advertising by pro-Republican groups and would instead spend money registering new voters and building stronger turnout organizations. Mr. Krone, who is not involved in super PAC operations that are trying to keep the Senate majority in Democratic hands, and other advisers said television advertising was the most powerful way to win races. Democratic strategists have spent months trying to lure Mr. Soros and other donors into the fray of election spending. “Why would they rule out this tried-and-true medium?” Mr. Krone said on Tuesday. “I can guarantee the Republicans are covering all bases and will have a coordinated plan.” The criticism from Mr. Reid’s top adviser, which was echoed in interviews with party leaders, highlighted the lingering tensions and frustrations in the Democratic Party over the influence of outside money on the campaign and the inability of Mr. Obama’s supporters to raise substantial sums for a pro-Obama super PAC. Wealthy Republicans have made contributions at record-setting levels, while many wealthy Democrats have shied away from giving. The decision by Mr. Soros and like-minded donors to help finance independent Democratic groups drew disdain from several Democratic officials. A senior party leader, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid alienating the donors, said: “They don’t get it. What they are doing makes no sense.” Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, declined to comment on Mr. Soros’s plans. But many liberal donors, including Mr. Soros, have raised objections to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which opened the door for super PACs and unlimited campaign spending. They say they did not believe they could match the Republican groups, so they wanted to try a different approach and back several liberal groups rather than put their financial muscle behind a single effort. A spokesman for Mr. Soros, Michael Vachon, said financing the grass-roots groups made more sense because liberal groups could not compete with the “floodgates to special interests’ paying for political ads.” The acrimony among the Democrats — Mr. Soros and many party leaders, including Mr. Obama, are often at odds — could have a real effect on the campaign. Democratic candidates at all levels have expressed concerns about not having the firepower to respond to conservative groups like Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity. And the decision by Mr. Soros and other donors to direct their money to grass-roots efforts revived memories from the 2004 presidential campaign when the Democratic get-out-the-vote effort was largely outsourced and widely seen as ineffective. The Democratic infighting, which is likely to intensify, comes as Mr. Obama’s campaign is spending $25 million this month to broadcast his first major television advertising campaign. Mr. Vachon, the spokesman for Mr. Soros, declined to comment on the criticism from Mr. Reid and other Democrats. But aides to some of the liberal groups that will receive some of the $100 million dismissed the criticism and said the Obama campaign and party leaders simply wanted to have control over donors.
