Obama's donations speak for themselves. I just read that hilary's campaign did some creative accounting to come up with "$20 million" last month when it was closer to "$7 mil".
"Wonder why Clinton claimed to have raised nearly $35 million in February, but more than $20 million of that haul wasn't available for the primary race? Pretty simple and truly Clinton-like slick: Hillary didn't expand her fundraising base … her mega-rich donors have all maxed out their $2,300 primary limit, but they donated money to Clinton's campaign anyway. So what's the problem? Well, since the donors had already maxed out, the $20 million can only be used during the general election campaign. Slick, huh? It makes it appear as though Hillary Clinton has raised a bunch of money, but she hasn't.
But there is more … it appears Hilllary Clinton's claims of having raised $20 million in March, is really only $7 million. Slick … very slick! Indeed, it is Clinton slick.
When it comes to money and politics, looks can be deceiving. Take February's presidential fundraising receipts, for example. After losing 11 straight primary contests to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton rebounded–in the headlines, at least–with the Feb. 29 announcement that she had racked up $34.5 million in contributions for the month, her all-time record. The only problem? Candidates aren't actually required to disclose full fundraising information until the 20th of the following month. Fortunately for Clinton, not many folks took notice when she finally filed with the FEC on March 20. If they had, they would've discovered that only a third of Clinton's February cash-on-hand, $11.7 million, was designated for the primary campaign; the remaining $20-plus million was all general election funds, and would only be available if she won the Democratic nomination. What's more, they would've also learned that Clinton's campaign had closed the month with $8.7 million in outstanding debt–leaving her at the start of March with a measly $3 million in free dough for the battles ahead.
I bring this up because we've suddenly reached the end of another month (and the start of another money-maniacal news cycle)–and only by looking back at February can we see how bleak March looks for Clinton. As usual, her financial fate doesn't seem particularly dire on its face. According to the Politico's Ben Smith, a Clinton campaign source says the candidate raised about $20 million for the month–her second-best finish to date, which isn't shabby for period largely lacking in competitive primaries. But if February's tally revealed anything, it's that Clinton has been unable to expand her donor base far enough beyond the traditional networks of wealthy Democrats; the $23 million gap between primary and general election funds proved that many of these contributors had long given the $2,300 maximum donation for the primary, and were now providing an additional $2,300 for the general only to inflate Clinton's monthly total and spur positive coverage. Assuming the pattern holds, it's unlikely that Clinton raised more than $7 million that she can actually use against Obama–less, you'll notice, than last month's debt, which is probably still outstanding. (And that's not even counting the $5 million Clinton loaned her campaign at the end of January.) In any case, we won't know for sure until–you guessed it–April 20. On a conference call this morning, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson refused to confirm the $20 million figure and reminded reporters that the campaign would not release its numbers until required by law. "We will have the resources that we need to compete," said Wolfson. Not exactly a confidence booster". Newsweek
Read it all right HERE at Newsweek
http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/?p=629
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
