When Michael Steele first started at the job of RNC chairman, I was very skeptical. I saw two big problems with his behavior: (a) it seemed to me like he had a wrong impression of the job of the RNC; (b) his comments, while they might be the tonic the party needs, should not come from the RNC chairman, whose job is to convince Republicans to donate money.

The best way to judge the national committees is by how much they raise. By this metric, we have to conclude that Michael Steele has done so-so to this point. Certainly not great, but not yet cause to sound the alarm bell.

Jim Geraghty has the details:

In January, Steele's first month, the party collected $5.8 million. In February, $5.1 million. Last month, $6.7 million. Including $7 million transferred to the RNC by the McCain-Palin campaign, the committee raised $25.3 million in the first quarter.

By contrast, the DNC raised $5.5 million in March, and transferred $2 million from Organizing for America -- the entity that used to be the Obama campaign. For the quarter, the DNC raised a bit more than $13.8 million.

Geraghty concludes that the concerns some have had about Steele as RNC chairman are looking "increasingly overblown." I think that is conclusion is a bit hasty. The jury is still out on Steele's ability to raise cash.

Let's put this in historical perspective. We're in the first quarter of the midterm election cycle. So, for comparative purposes, that means that January through March of 2005 are the best months for comparison. In that period, the RNC received $34.2 million, of which $32.3 million were contributions (as opposed to transfers, offsets, or other miscellaneous receipts). Meanwhile, the DNC received $16.7 million during that period, of which $14.1 million were contributions.

So, the RNC is not even close to matching the pace it set four years ago, but it is doing a little bit better than the DNC was (then and certainly now). What should we make of this?

On the one hand, it might be setting the bar too high to expect the RNC in 2009 to match its haul in 2005. That was just months after the GOP won a solid victory, and President Bush was still reasonably popular (Gallup had his job approval in the low 50s, high 40s at that point). It was a pretty good time to be a Republican. Factor in the fundraising draw that a sitting president is - and we might not be surprised that the RNC in 2009 is behind where it was four years ago. Also, the RNC raised about $3 million more in the first quarter of 2009 than it did in the first quarter of 2007. I don't think that is the ideal comparison because there were other draws for party dollars at that point. Rudy and Romney had already pulled in some $37 million combined by that point. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning.

On the other hand, historically speaking, fundraising receipts have had an inflationary quality over the past decades. Regardless of campaign context, the party committees seem to raise more and more each year - so that, for instance, John McCain's RNC raised $30 million more than George Bush's RNC, even though Bush won his election by two points while McCain lost his by seven and a half.

Another point - I do not derive too much information from comparing the RNC to the DNC. The DNC had real fundraising problems during Howard Dean's tenure. He did not raise as much money as one should have expected in either 2006 or 2008. Tim Kaine - who is still part time, so long as he is governor of Virginia - might have a real job on his hands in rebuilding the committee's fundraising capacities. That the RNC is beating the DNC does not say much about whether the RNC is where Republicans need it to be. Anyway, the DNC has Barack Obama, who can raise oodles of cash via fundraisers whenever he likes.

All in all, I'd suggest that these numbers are passable, but certainly not extraordinary. Steele underperformed relative to 2005, but that might not be as problematic as it first appears. Nevertheless, these numbers suggest that party regulars should keep a close eye on the RNC.