Cash on Hand: Obama $34 million; Clinton: $33 million; Edwards: $12 million

[TeamJordan23]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_money

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton ended the first half of the year with more than $30 million each for the presidential primaries, a formidable financial performance for the two leading Democratic White House contenders.

Obama reported having about $34 million in primary cash on hand; Clinton reported $33 million.

Obama led in fundraising for the period covering April though June, raising nearly $32 million for the primary election and about $1 million for the general election, according to reports filed Sunday with the Federal Election Commission.

Clinton raised about $21.5 million for the primary and $5.6 million for the general election, her campaign said.

Neither candidate can use the general election money unless he or she wins the nomination.

John Edwards, the Democrat closest to the two fundraising leaders, reported having $12 million in the bank for the primary.

[rusty charly]

1. and since it's a race exclusively about $$$, that's that, then, huh?

[TeamJordan23]

3. well John Kerry showed it isn't ALL about the money. But all this money in politics does suck. nt

[stevedeshazer]

2. Publicly financed elections NOW

This is un-American.

[AtomicKitten]

4. on the Chris Mathews show today

The reporter from the New Yorker said Obama is fudging/inflating his numbers (# of contributors) by counting as donors people that just buy a bumper sticker from his website.

[illinoisprogressive]

7. You did not know that buying from any campaign is counted. It is standard

not unique to obama. And they say so on the website in several places including the store. I bought a bumper sticker from them so I know.

[AtomicKitten]

9. just relaying what he said FWIW

There is no question Obama is out-fundraising Hill.

[ronnykmarshall]

41. Did you have to provide employer info, etc .....

like you do when you donate?

[BigDDem]

45. Really? Better tell the New York Times that everyone is doing it

NYT: ...But to capitalize on his celebrity, Mr. Obama’s campaign has also employed novel tactics — like counting sales of $5 speech tickets or $4.50 Obama key chains as individual contributions — to pump up his numbers and transform grass-roots enthusiasm into more useful forms of support. No other campaign is known to have listed paraphernalia sales as donations....

[rhombus]

10. umm. this applies to every campaign. FEC rules

Maybe Obama does exceptional marketing for his store merchandise? He's doing something right then. You see a lot of folks wearing Obama gear.

[AtomicKitten]

13. I've seen more Obama bumper stickers here in SF than the others.

He's definitely spreading the message far and wide.

On edit: I did not know but have since been schooled on the FEC rules in this regard, but it still leaves me wondering why this particular pundit was being bitchy to just Obama about it. I would think it applies to all candidates. Ah, the Media Heathers strike again.

[ronnykmarshall]

43. I don't see hardly ANY stickers in LA

I've got my Hil-REY one and one of my neighbors in my building has an Obama one. I've seen a few Edwards ones around, some more Obama and Hillary ones here and there.

I saw several Hillary ones when I was in New York.

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

17. Made in the USA

at Union shops has alot to do with it.

[rhombus]

5. So Hillary transferred $10M from her 2006 senate race to get to the $33M figure

Obama did well!

[zulchzulu]

22. That is correct...

Clinton used $10M from her Senate campaign to add up to this figure. Granted, she got a lot of that money in the Senate race saying she wasn't going to run in 2008, but yunno... let's see... another...whoops...dropped it...there we go...another free pass for the Senator.

[juajen]

29. I'm not sure you are correct.

I believe I remember that she specifically did not promise she would not run for President during her 2006 senate campaign. Someone got a link?

[rinsd]

42. "saying she wasn't going to run in 2008" When did she say that?

GOPers tried to attack her on it and her response was always along the lines of "I have not made a formal decision".

[illinoisprogressive]

6. And to think, obama had no real organization 6 months ago. what a feat.

[TheBaldyMan]

8. the latest reading on the corporatewhorometer

I suppose on the upside this means that the GOP is so weak that even big business has abandoned it.

[TeamJordan23]

12. I'm sure the majority of the money came from just regular individuals. nt

[TheBaldyMan]

14. large chunks of it came from corporate donors, even Obama has

a significant percentage from corpoate donors (about 11% if I remember correctly). People just like backing winners.

[ripple]

24. Given the corporate influence on our political construct

I find 11% pretty insignificant. That number suggests that 89% of his money came from individuals like myself. Not bad at all. :hi:

[TheBaldyMan]

26. can he maintain it if he wins the nomination,

I fear that the corporate interests will muscle in no matter who gets it.

[ripple]

30. I think you're right

Unless the republican nominee agrees to accept public funding, as Obama has if his opponent pledges to do the same. If not, all bets are off. If it gets to that point, I'm sorry to say that we can't afford to have a candidate stand on principle alone. I won't appreciate the increased involvement of corporate entities, but unfortunately, that is the system we're stuck with until we can get real reform.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. He raised $10 million online. Where do you think the bulk of the other $21 million came from?

Rich "regular" individuals. ;) Kudos to Obama, though, on his fund-raising success. :toast:

[beaconess]

31. Not necessarily

Everybody who donates places other than online is NOT a "rich regular individual." Many, many people - especially older voters and lower-income voters do not donate via the internet, which, while an effective fundraising venue, is still somewhat limited to those who have access to computers and are comfortable doing financial transactions online. There are quite a few "real" regular individuals who donate to campaigns the old-fashioned way - by mailing checks, giving at rallies, etc. The internet is not the end-all-and-be-all for everyone yet.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. Sure, but the vast majority are not small donors ($200 or less) nt

[beaconess]

37. There's a considerable difference between giving less than $200 and being "rich"

Plenty of people who aren't anything close to being rich give more than $200 to a candidate.

[Colobo]

38. I'm a dirt poor grad student, proud online Obama donor

[draft_mario_cuomo]

40. There can be no doubt Obama has an impressive network of grassroots supporters nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. Fair point. Unfortunately, as far as I know, no breakdown of contributions has went beyond that

I would like to see a breakdown of contributions of all our candidates that showed what percentage of their funds came from people who gave $1,000 or more.

[TeamJordan23]

32. Very misleading conclusion. Many small paying donors attend live events.

I think nearly 90% of Obama's fundraising from the 1st round were like from contributions of $100 or less (details from this second round are not available yet). Wouldn't you think the 'rich' person would be giving more than $100. The reality is that a lot of the public events are free for attendence and people make contributions at the events. Just think about when Obama goes to college campuses. A lot of students just shell out $5-10 at a live event. Or think about events where a lot of senior citizens attend and donate (a lot of seniors do not use the internet).

Also, mostly all the candidates are lowering their costs for fundraisers to attract more donors. Here is a USA Today article on the trend:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-10-small-donors_N.htm?csp=34

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Your own link confirms my point. 78% of his first quarter money came from "big donors"

It should be noted, though, that this was the lowest percentage among the major candidates in the first quarter. However, Edwards almost certainly bested him on this measure in the second quarter judging by his substantially smaller (about 1/3 less) average contribution.

=A lot of students just shell out $5-10 at a live event.==

Sure. And it takes 460 students giving $5 to match one fatcat giving $2,300.

Obama has plenty of grassroots support but the notion that his campaign is like the Dean campaign, which actually raised the bulk of its money from small donors and had no real corporate support, is a myth. What you said is correct but misleading. Yes, the vast majority of contributors to Obama in the first quarter were small donors--but 78% of the money he raised came from big donors. The Obama campaign's fund-raising machine is a powerful mix of grassroots support and fatcat and corporate support.

[TeamJordan23]

33. Also, lets not forget that Obama is not taking contributions from Federal Lobbyists. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. Yes, and neither is Edwards nt

[Odin2005]

46. And which is why either of them would make a good president.

My ideal ticket is Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama. I lean towards Obama for the top slot because I see him carrying on what Dean started, he has the power of the Deaniacs behind him.

[Imagevision]

11. I think it will become interesting when Oprah Winfrey steps out of the wings and

starts with the Obama election drumming... don'cha think, she has already stated she backs him 100%

[emilyg]

25. I can't say that her opinion

influences me much

[Colobo]

28. She reaches a lot of people. Not you or me, but a lot of people.

[Bjorn Against]

15. And Bloomberg has said he may spend up to $1 billion of his own money if he gets in

We need publicly financed elections now, this is way out of hand.

[rhombus]

16. Bloomberg can spend all the money he wants. He has zero chance

And he hurts Republicans far more than he does Democrats. He is the Republican's Ross Perot. Democrats should welcome him into the race.

[Bjorn Against]

19. I have heard some arguments that he hurts Republicans, other say he hurts Democrats

I wouldn't write off anyone with a billion dollar campaign operation though, and ultimately that is the point.

We do not have a level playing field as the ultra-rich and those who are willing to sell themselves out to the ultra-rich have a huge advantage over those who try to stick to principle. That is why we need public financing of elections.

[rhombus]

21. Money goes so far. People who contribute to a campaign tend to be more invested

Most polls show Bloomberg taking votes from Republicans than from Democrats. As for the money thing, I don't see Bloomberg having a national grassroots following like Ross Perot did. He is not charismatic at all. All that money won't buy him votes.

[zulchzulu]

23. If Bloomberg gives me a million dollars in cash, I might vote for him

In $50s... I might...

[tblue37]

18. McCain, $250,000.

[TeamJordan23]

20. Compared to Ron Paul, who has $2.4 million on hand. nt

[SaveElmer]

44. Also interesting...

Hillary has over 12 million on hand for the general, Obama slightly over 1 million...

Different strategies I guess...

[Odin2005]

47. Because she's naively assuming the Establishment will make sure she gets the Nomination.

[SaveElmer]

49. So the 40% or so of Democrats supporting her can be characterized,,,

The Establishment

:rofl:

[Odin2005]

51. Polls are meaningless at this phase.

It's mostly name recognition now.

[TeamJordan23]

48. Interesting but also one of the most idiotic remarks I have seen. nt

[SaveElmer]

50. Ok I have to ask...

How is it idiotic to point out a fact?