WP: Bush Far Outpaces Dean in Donations

[primavera]

In less than six months, Bush has raised at least $82.5 million, putting him well on his way toward his goal of raising $170 million to $200 million for his reelection campaign.

<snip>

During the first quarter, Edwards's campaign received a boost when he reported raising $7.4 million, more than anyone else. For that quarter, Kerry raised $7 million; Gephardt, $3.5 million; Lieberman, $3 million; and Dean, $2.6 million. In the second quarter, Dean took the lead, raising $7.6 million. Kerry dropped to $5.8 million and Edwards to $4.5 million. Gephardt improved modestly to $3.8 million, and Lieberman rose to $5.1 million.

This quarter, with Dean already close to $13 million and aiming for $15 million, Edwards's aides said he will raise about $3 million, Kerry's aides said he will raise between $4.5 million and $5 million, and a spokesman said Lieberman will raise from $4 million to $5 million.


What I find interesting about this article - which the author does not mention - is that, if you tally up the monies gathered by all of the Democratic candidates, even without the benefit of the shrub's wealthy oil and defense industry buddies' bottomless coffers, they came up with nearly $90 million in the same time period, from ordinary people. That's pretty cool if you ask me. Admittedly, it doesn't help when it's spread out amongst 10 candidates, but it goves me hope that, once the primaries are over and we can get behind a single candidate, we may not be as financially disadvantaged as some would seem to suggest.

[CMT]

1. no doubt about it

Bush is mr. moneybags with the big shots. This is why we need someone like Dean who has a proven ability to raise money from dedicated supporters in small amounts who can compete with Bush's money raised primarily from big dollar fund raisers.

[Sean Reynolds]

2. Well DUH!

When you have $200,000 plate dinners you're going to rake in the cash. Sadly all this money has come from the corporate big wigs - just to solidify the fact Bush is a corporate WHORE.

[AndyTiedye]

4. Bush*'s $200,000,000 is only the beginning

He gets *billions* in free advertising from Faux and the others.

[Demobrat]

3. I notice they didn't compare number of donors.

I wonder why?

[cjbuchanan]

5. I have noticed that fact as well

Dems are out raising Bush & Co. However, Dems also need to spend it right now. What is Bush & Co. doing with their money? Just waiting to attack.

However, with the CIA mess coming out, it might just mean that no matter how much they have, Bush & Co. will still be covered in sh*t.

[primavera]

7. You think I'm just indulging in wishful thinking?

Is it naive to think that the successes that Dems have had collectively in fund raising will translate into fundraising prowess for a Dem nominee once we finally have one?

I guess I'm curious about this on a larger scale as well, beyond just the $. It seems like the wide field of Dem candidates have managed to attract a whole hell of a lot of people across the spectrum who share a common loathing of the shrub. Once the ten are just one, do you think we can realistically expect the support generated by the ten to be consolidated behind the one? Or am I dreaming?

[hunter]

6. Business 101, Bush style...

Have friends contribute to your election campaign, get elected to governement office, steal money from government for your friends, wash, rinse and repeat...

[Jacobin]

8. What's interesting is what they are NOT reporting

The average amount of money per donor.

Dems probably 75 per donor.

Repukes a couple of thousand per donor, no doubt.

[demdave]

11. Rep. have many more smaller donors than Dems.

All the studies and reports from the Federal Election Commision clearly show this. Of people giving over $200 but less than $1000 in the 2000 election, 62% went to Reps. Of people giving over $1 million 93% went to the Dems. In the $1k to $100k range it is about evenly divided. Under $200 isn't reported so there are no figures to evaluate. (I guess that leaves that segment open for a baseless claim of support :))

The Reps. also have doantions spread over a much greater area geographically than the Dems. "Democrats, by and large, are dependent on a smaller population of major donors than Republicans are. Republican donors live nearly everywhere, but the top-dollar Democrats tend to cluster in enclaves such as Hollywood, Manhattan, San Francisco, and other urban centers."

"Republicans have a much broader distribution of donors. The richest fundraising centers are identical — New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, but Republicans have many more small-to-mid-sized donor centers than their Democratic counterparts."


http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.asp?cycle=2000


http://www.opensecrets.org/newsletter/ce71/02geog.asp

[sandnsea]

12. This year too?

I bet with the internet, this might well change. I give Dean's campaign all the credit for waking the Democratic Party up to the financial power of its base. After these nasty primaries are over, we need to stay energized and be creative and keep giving. Let's put a monkey wrench in these Republican money machines and send the monkey back to Texas!

[demdave]

13. There is no way to tally an ongoing process.

These numbers will be there for all to see, and in some cases ignore, after the elections are finished.

[MountainLaurel]

9. Very interesting

That all of the Dem candidates' contributions total to be more than Bush's. Perhaps it's a sign that the Dems aren't as behind monetarily as it would seem at first glance.

:hi: Hi KevinJ!

[Eloriel]

10. Umm, not ALL of that $90 million is from ordinary people

Dean's is, and probably Kucinich's, Sharpton's, Moseley-Braun's. The other guys are taking big donor money.

That puts Dean's probable $15 in a much different light -- the biggest quarter fundraiser AND all from ordinary people.

Eloriel