Lost in the hubbub surrounding Super Tuesday was is the fact that late last week all of the presidential candidates -- and the various party campaign committees -- released their year-end fundraising figures.
From the presidential level to the congressional level, these numbers bode extremely poorly for Republicans already fighting a difficult national political environment because of continued public unhappiness with the war in Iraq and the state of the economy.
The two remaining Democratic candidates -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama -- each collected more than $100 million this year. Clinton led the way with $118 million in total receipts ($106 million from individuals) while Obama took in $104 million ($102 million from individuals.) Taken together, Clinton and Obama raised $222 million in 2007 with $208 million of that total coming from individuals.
Compare that total to that of the two best-funded candidates on the Republican side -- former governor Mitt Romney (Mass.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Romney collected $90 million last year -- more than a third of which ($35 million) came from his own pocket. Take Romney's massive personal contribution out of his fundraising, however, and he has collected $53.5 million from individuals. Giuliani, who dropped from the race following a disappointing third place finish in Florida last week, raised $60 million total with $57.5 million of that coming from individual contributors. Add contributions to Romney and Giuliani together and you get $150 million -- not too shabby. Subtract Romney's personal donation, however, and the two best-financed Republicans together raised $111 million from individuals -- barely more than either Clinton or Obama collected on their own.
It's not just at the top where the disparity between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates exists, however. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who after tomorrow is likely to be the odds-on favorite for the GOP presidential nod, raised $40 million in 2007, a total that includes $36 million in individual contributions. That total is decidedly similar to the $44 million raised by former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.). (Edwards actually raised $35 million from individuals and took out a $9 million bank loan against the federal matching money he received by accepting public financing in the primaries.)
A couple of comments here. First, the Democrats are still out-raising and out-spending the Republicans here. Both Clinton and Obama each raised over $100 million in campaign contributions. The closest GOP candidate to come near the $100 million mark was Mitt Romney at $90 million--but that figure includes the $35 million that he spent from his own pocket. And then there is Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani spent almost $60 million in his failed bid for the presidency. Giuliani was the presumed front-runner through 2007, but the Giuliani campaign never won any states, and only finished third in his last-ditch stand in Florida. I should also point out one other GOP "white horse" candidate that also spent a large sum of money before dropping out. I'm talking about Fred Thompson, and his spending of over $21 million, before dropping out after Florida. I thought I would go in and look at some of the totals raised by both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. The source is through CNN Election Central. Here is what all the Democratic presidential candidates have raised:
Hillary Clinton........$118 million.
Barack Obama........$103 million.
John Edwards.........$44 million.
Bill Richardson.......$18 million.
Chris Dodd.............$13 million.
Joe Biden...............$11 million.
Dennis Kucinich.....$4 million.
Total Raised...........$317 million.
That is an impressive amount of money that the Democratic presidential candidates have raised. What is more, if you take out Clinton's and Obama's totals, then the rest of the candidates have raised a total sum of $90 million. This is just an incredible sum of money here.
Now I want to look at what all the Republican presidential candidates have raised:
Mitt Romney............$90 million (Combined $55 million raised, plus $35 million of Romney's own money).
Rudy Giuliani...........$60 million.
John McCain............$42 million.
Ron Paul..................$28 million.
Fred Thompson........$21 million.
Mike Huckabee........$9 million.
Tom Tancredo.........$3 million.
Duncan Hunter........$2 million.
Total Raised.............$255 million.
What is so amazing here is that the Democratic presidential candidates have outraised the Republican presidential candidates by $62 million dollars. That amount is well above any of the GOP candidates' totals of campaign contributions raised--and that includes the $55 million amount that Romney raised without dipping into his own fortune. Something is happening here. We have got American citizens more excited and engaged with the Democratic presidential candidates over the Republicans. And we are seeing Americans willing to contribute more money to the Democratic presidential candidates over that of the Republican presidential candidates. I would say that what is happening is that Americans want serious change after seven years of a Bush failed presidency. They see that change coming from a Democratic president, and they are willing to spend their money electing a Democrat over that of a Republican. This does not bode well for the Republicans.
Here is some food for thought my friend. My little campaign for Joe Serra at 10pm tonight with no money just shoe leather grabbed 7.14% of the vote. And outran a candidate that spent 350k on his campaign. Now Joe did not win but what a world it would be if you were only allowed a set amount of money to run.
ReplyDeleteHey Jude: What an interesting food for thought here. I'd love to see the source data of the 14th Congressional District's election results--Chicago Tribune doesn't have squat on this special election. This may be an interesting race to watch, considering it is Dennis Hastert's former seat, and a Democratic Party win will give us an increase of D seats in the House.
ReplyDeleteNow for Joe Serra--a guy running on a half-shoestring budget gets 7.14 percent of the vote. That is a rather interesting statistic because it tells me that Illinois voters are also eager for a change--especially if Serra outran a candidate that spent over $350K in this race. And let's not forget that Illinois voters decided to send their exciting Senator Barack Obama to the Democratic nomination. Talk about change there. We have got a fascinating election shaping up here.
Now Joe did not win but what a world it would be if you were only allowed a set amount of money to run.
I'm sorry to say, but elections are won and lost on the world of money. There is nothing we can do about that. And as much as we may dream about the public financing of campaigns, that is never going to happen. No regulations of campaign financing or spending limits on candidates, or elections, will stop the flow of money here--the money will just flow through cracks in the laws to special interest groups, PACs, or other small political organizations that support a particular candidate or issue. The big political parties will not allow such legislation that will severely limit their own ability to raise money. And special interests will not allow their own influence of money on candidates be limited. As much as you and I would love to see a perfect world where candidates' decisions are not affected by the influence of money, we both know that is not going to happen. The best thing we can do is to see that legislation is enacted to clearly show us who is really giving money to which candidate, or a political campaign group, and where that money is going in spending. The goal here is to see where the money is coming from, and where it is going to, allowing us to see which political candidate is being influenced by special interest group, or individual.