First the Fundraising Reports, Then the Campaign Fallout
The end of a fundraising quarter is a tense time for every presidential campaign.
A relative quiet tends to settle over the campaign trail in the days before candidates close the books on a fundraising period, but the release of the totals of how much a campaign has actually raised often serves as a prelude to unrest. That was certainly true at the end of the second quarter in June, when Sen. John McCain was forced to jettison much of his operation upon discovering the campaign had burned through almost all of the money he had raised.
And it there are plenty of signs there will be quakes when third quarter numbers begin to emerge on Sunday. Most notable, at this point, was word yesterday that Sen. John Edwards had abruptly decided to accept public matching funds.
Edwards's senior political team argued that the decision was purely based on principle. That they were going to enter the public financing system because it showed they were totally free of the fundraising impurities that would have come with trying to bundle their way to $100 million. Senior adviser Joe Trippi said the campaign would end the quarter with between $8 million and $9 million in the bank, an amount that would have permitted them to remain outside the public system if they had wanted to do so.
But campaign finance experts said the move had a whiff of desperation, because the financing system imposes some strict limits on how much Edwards will be able to spend in the critical early states. When McCain first announced he was considering taking public funds (he's still pondering), Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf described the move this way: "The spending limits are just too low. It's fatal. It's not doable. On either side."
The Edwards move may not be the only drama to come out of the third quarter finance reports. Republican Mitt Romney appears poised to dump significantly more of his own fortune into his campaign effort -- a possible sign that he had trouble raising the money from donors this quarter. At a speech in California Wednesday, the Associated Press reported that Romney -- who once said donating to his presidential campaign would be a nightmare -- declared that he had "contributed significantly to the campaign" and added "I presume I will again."
Through June, the former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist had contributed $9 million to his campaign, nearly a quarter of his overall contributions.
"I don't like the fact that money has such an impact on politics, but this to me is a reason I'm investing at least as much as everybody else -- probably a little more," Romney said, according to the AP report.
There is also uncertainty about the results Republican Rudy Giuliani will post. Those around his campaign have been predicted a solid quarter for the former New York mayor. But Wednesday came word he had decided to fire his campaign's finance director. Whether that signals a money downturn is unclear, but won't be for long.
Then there is the matter of the many candidates from both parties who have plowed ahead to this point without much money to burn. If history is any help, these end-of-quarter hours are tough times for candidates on the bubble.
In October 1999, Elizabeth Dole said she was dropping out because she could not raise funds to compete with George W. Bush or Steve Forbes. Bush had raised more than $60 million, and that Forbes was able to rely on his personal fortune. Dole--who had raised $4.7 million in the first nine months of 1999--said she would have had enough money to compete in Iowa and New Hampshire, the states with the first presidential caucus and primary, respectively, but not in the rest of the country. "It would be futile to continue," she said. A few days earlier, the former vice president, Dan Quayle, had withdrawn his candidacy, saying he lacked the money to compete with Bush.
--Matthew Mosk
Posted at 4:35 PM ET on Sep 28, 2007
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: sfdreamer | October 3, 2007 1:09 PM
This is why we need to have more campaign finance reform. The idea of the millions and millions of dollars being spent in the primaries is just plain Obscene and the general election will be worse. Complete campaign finance reform that is funding by the government will get rid of all these problems, plus lobby pacs and large Corporate donations if you don't take public funding under the rules in place now.
With the huge number of Americans living at or below the poverty level, the fact that politicians can raise these huge amount of money obscene, when children to to bed hungry in America every night.
It's time for change, no longer can any child, outside a small minority with funding access, become President.
Madison, WI
Posted by: moberer977 | October 1, 2007 9:00 AM
"The Obama folks are out and lying again..."
Funny that, despite the hundreds of Clinton blog trolls out here, they get so annoyed by anyone talking up Obama.
The final dollar numbers will be interesting... but more important than that is 2 things: how many total contributers a campaign has, and how "maxed out" they are for their giving.
Obama will dominate these statistics, showing many thousands more supporters - and unlike Hillary's corporate supporters who write their maxed out cheques - Barrack's supporters will continue to infuse funds into his campaign right up until the Primaries.
I know because I am one of these small doners. Go Obama.
Posted by: Boutan | October 1, 2007 2:11 AM
Obama continues to pile up the small contributions from small donors. Hillary's corporate connected millionaire donors have mostly maxed out. She may be falling further behind in the money race. Forget the polls they still mean nothing at this point. Obama is in it for the long haul -- the massive donations guarantee it.
Posted by: zbob99 | September 30, 2007 1:18 PM
nice. The Obama folks are out and lying again...dig these two woppers..."4 times as many people are giving money to Obama than Clinton. Less than 20% of voters have made up their mind and won't until the week before the election"
Why dont we add that to the "there were 50,000 people in Union sq Park in NYC to see barry" and the big one that no one will mention from Obama's campaign itself -"Oh, we NEED Secret Service protection - even though it will be the first time ever a primary candidate has gotten it - and cost the country tens of million, NOT because it will make us LOOK Presidential and an equal to Clinton, but because of vague undisclosed "threats" against Barry"...and of course the big two - that he's actually ready to be President after two frigging years after being elected after beating a crazy ass Keyes in Ill...and that he has any frigging chance to actually be elected in either the primaries or the general.
These tools are getting annoying...
Lies, lies, lies.
And the Obama fans are calling the Clintons unethical?
Puleeze...
Posted by: hotlinecomedy | September 30, 2007 8:30 AM
After Joe Trippi in '04 with Howard Dean, I'd say those who are stating it's a move of desperation are probably on the mark. Edwards has been eloquent, but he seems a bit too radical for a lot of us. That being said, I really like the guy.
It pays to note from reports from a variety of sources that Obama has a much greater number of contributors. It also pays to point out that a lot of them are not "maxed out" per the FEC regulations.
Obama's may not have as deep pockets, but sheer numbers indicate a growing groundswell of not only support but contributions for the next quarter when everyone gets focused after the summer.
I'll not restate my reasons for not supporting Hillary and they've been said before. Barack Obama's the one who is drawing both crowds and funds even from Republicans like this one.
Posted by: travelgallery | September 29, 2007 7:50 AM
4 times as many people are giving money to Obama than Clinton. Less than 20% of voters have made up their mind and won't until the week before the election. Watch what's happening on the ground, not what's reported in the corporate press by lazy reporters who talk to other lazy reporters or Washington insiders. The same crack journalists who refused to challenge the Bush crime family or the Neo-con war machine or the evangelical incompetents who flooded the government. America is sick and tired of the status quo and there's only one candidate who won't continue the same old same old.
Posted by: thebobbob | September 29, 2007 12:49 AM
Big John will never make the cut. The Democrats only hope is Hillary,and that is NOT saying much.
Posted by: EdwardTBeazley | September 28, 2007 6:56 PM
Yup... you could talk politics and share a big bowl of chips with Bubba... just give some cash to his lil missus Hillary...
Ka - ching....
Posted by: Big_Blue | September 28, 2007 5:34 PM
Yup... you could talk politics and share a big bowl of chips with Bubba... just give some cash to his lil missus Hillary...
Ka - ching....
Posted by: Big_Blue | September 28, 2007 5:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
It's funny how the mainstream media don't mention that Ron Paul is winning more straw polls than any other Republican candidate (see http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/ ). He is obviously a top tier candidate, yet many in the media continue to insist on applying that label only to Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and McCain. Meanwhile Free Market News Network reports that many state GOP organizations are changing their voting rules in an attempt to derail Dr. Paul's surging campaign by limiting voting to Republicans in states that normally have open primaries where Independents and Democrats can vote in the Republican primary. I hope enough ordinary Americans see and understand what is going on to keep them from pulling the wool over our eyes again. For the first time in my lifetime, I see a strong chance of an honest, humble person who believes in limited government, strong protections for civil liberties, and sound money being elected president. And predictably, the establishment is pulling out all the stops to prevent it from happening.