$26 Million - That's a Lotta Kielbasa
Jeff Alworth
The first quarter fundraising reports were due at the end of March, and already some of the campaigns are announcing their totals--including Hillary Clinton, whose record $26 million will go into coffers already lined with $10 million in left-over Senate lucre:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) raised $26 million in the first quarter of the year, almost three times as much as any politician has previously raised at this point in a presidential election, officials with her campaign announced yesterday.
Barack Obama didn't announce his total (speculation puts it around $20 million), but other Dems did: John Edwards raised an impressive $14 million, and New Mexico governor Bill Richardson keeps his dark-horse candidacy alive with a respectable six mil. Christopher Dodd and Joe Biden raised $4 and $3 million respectively. The previous record for first quarter totals in the year prior to an election was $9 million--though this year's earlier primary schedule has moved up fundraising.
Clinton's effort has been described as a kind of shock and awe campaign to winnow the field and establish early dominance and a sense of inevitability. Her own campaign described her figures as "staggering," but these figures appear to confirm her front-runner status while revealing some weakness--with about a third of all money raise (presuming Obama's $20m), Democratic clearly haven't donors united behind her yet.
So what do you think about Hillary's numbers--shock and awe or blood in the water?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:17 a.m.
Apr 2, '07
Three thoughts...
First: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all broke the record for fundraising in Q1 of the year previous. So, they're all on the march.
Second: Look back at the coverage a year ago. There were many, many predictions that Hillary would end 2006 (much less finish Q1 2007) with $50 million. She's way below expectations.
Third: There's a new wrinkle this year. The FEC has decided to allow the candidates to raise general-election money during the primary season. They can't spend it, and if they don't become the nominee - it has to go back to the donors (or, maybe, go to the DNC.) This matters most to people raising money from "double-max" donors, since the first $2300 you donate will always be a primary donation. Hillary didn't disclose how much of her money is locked-up general-election money. Edwards did; and it's only $1 million of his total. It doesn't matter how much you have; only how much you can spend.
Apr 2, '07
Judging from past campaign anomalies - If Hillary reported $26 million - you can bet the actual figure is $30+ million.
Apr 2, '07
Money raised is an important barometer of support , but don't put too much faith in it.
In 1980, the leading fund raiser was Texas Governor John Connally, who raised $11 million and spent more than that when he dropped out in March, 1980. (That figure indexed for inflation is about $30 million. It's amazing how much more money they are raising now.) Connally netted one delegate, who became known as "The $11 million delegate".
Other leading or strong fundraisers from the past who bit the dust (often early on) were Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes, John Glenn, Pat Robertson, Scoop Jackson, Ed Muskie and Nelson Rockefller.
Fundraising isn't everything and it's defiantly not the only thing.
Apr 2, '07
Sounds like $26 mil puts her in the pocket of corperate interests.
Apr 2, '07
It would be nonsensical to draw too much of a parallel between Portland politics and the national presidential race, but is Hillary making the same mistake Francesconi did? Over-reliance on traditional campaign "benchmarks" (money, endorsements) at the expense of actual work (convincing voters that you have what it takes to lead -- both in policy substance and internal character), can turn voters off.
With all the hoopla about Hillary's strong candidacy, I have yet to meet anyone who strongly supports her. Nothing scientific about that, but it should be a warning sign.
Apr 2, '07
I have yet to meet anyone who strongly supports her. Nothing scientific about that, but it should be a warning sign.
I am so psyched a woman is running for President who could actually compete for the office. And Barak - we are putting up some great candidates - either of these two will get my vote. A woman? A black man? Both extremely intelligent? now we're getting somewhere!
Apr 2, '07
Bush - Clinton - Bush - (Clinton) again?
No thank you. Time for a change.
And by the way, Edwards does not take PAC money. Clinton on the hand will take money from anyone or anything with or without a pulse.
Apr 2, '07
A lotta money for a crappy candidate! This is largely Bill's doing and Bill's contacts and legacy. She is sinking in the polls and Obama and Edwards will overtake her in both polling and money in the next few months.
Apr 2, '07
Obviously these folks are all in a race for cash. However Clinton's numbers do dangerously raise expectations for her. If she doesn't absolutely sweep the first couple primaries and caucuses there will be barrels of blood in the water as the national media stumbles over itself to claim that Clinton has "failed to meet expectations" and is "stumbling". That sort of bullshit. I'm an Edwards supporter myself at the moment (But don't dislike any of the top 3) and I think he is well poised to fly in under the radar. The press will absolutely be gunning to take down Clinton and every tiny chink in the armor will fly into a major story.
In any event, four years ago at this time, the same media that is gushing over Clinton and Obama were telling us that Dean all but had the nomination sewn up. We all know how well that played out for Dean.
10:50 a.m.
Apr 2, '07
Hillary Clinton is not my favorite candidate. I won't work for her, or vote for her in the primary.
However, I think that many of the criticisms that are directed her way, with the exception of her position on the war, are unfounded. She has been very effective at pushing legislation for her constituents, and has been a generally reliable liberal vote in the U.S. Senate.
She is far too neo-liberal for my tastes, and nowhere near as charismatic as her husband, but she is also a smart and capable woman who deserves respect for that.
Moreover, she may very well be our candidate at the end of this process, and from a policy standpoint, she's much better than any of the Republicans currently in the field.
Let's not lose sight of that, because like it or not, she is going to be a major force in this election.
10:54 a.m.
Apr 2, '07
Obviously these folks are all in a race for cash. However Clinton's numbers do dangerously raise expectations for her. If she doesn't absolutely sweep the first couple primaries and caucuses there will be barrels of blood in the water as the national media stumbles over itself to claim that Clinton has "failed to meet expectations" and is "stumbling".
With California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and Texas all in play by Feb 5th, Clinton, or any candidate, sweeps the early primaries will be our nominee.
Any candidate who cannot keep pace with Clinton in fundraising will not be competitive in what amounts to a national primary on Feb 5th.
If Edwards and/or Obama survive Feb 5th, which I suspect will happen, the Democratic Primary is going to go much longer than the experts around here would have you believe.
Apr 2, '07
Sounds like a lot of Democrat money will be sucked up by Hillary's losing presidential bid. Great.
Apr 2, '07
Great--as if the average person was not turned off enough to politics---and this far out we are talking about huge sums of money. My bet is burn out is going to happen before we ever get to election day.
Apr 2, '07
I think more important at this stage is the number of donors in that respect Hillary is doing very well with 50K. Obama trumps her though with what 83K. I find that last number astounding and it shows that he is definitely not giving ground.
Apr 2, '07
I'm not ultra supportive of Hillary. Edwards has my vote right now unless he does something to change that. It's an uphill battle with Hillary but I'd like to add that she is an extremely strong candidate. On her own she would be a force but we haven't even seen Bill get to work for her yet. We're talking about probably the most liked President since JFK. He's a rock star and if anyone is discounting what he will do to this race don't. I'll be saving my money to donate to the Democratic nominee and I'm not going to cry and pout and say I'm going to throw my vote away on a 3rd party nominee because the last thing this country needs is another President to throw another right wing wacko on the Supreme court and set us back another 30 years. It's going to take 20 years to fix what Bush and the Republicans have done to us already. So to make a long story short, I don't really care who the nominee is. I can guarantee that whomever walks out of this primary on top is better than whomever comes out of the Republican primary.
1:52 p.m.
Apr 2, '07
Posted by: spicey | Apr 2, 2007 10:18:35 AM
Or Richardson, most quilified and would be the first hispanic President.
1:57 p.m.
Apr 2, '07
It would be interesting if we had insight into the size of donation, per donor, for the candidates. Candidates who have a higher percentage of smaller dollar donors will be able to hit them again. Max donors can't be tapped again and again like large numbers of smaller dollar donors.
Apr 2, '07
Sal -
Well put. Hillary will make a fine President, as will Obama or Edwards.
Look back at the coverage a year ago. There were many, many predictions that Hillary would end 2006 (much less finish Q1 2007) with $50 million. She's way below expectations.
Kari - who are you trying to kid? Are you saying people were predicting she was going to raise $50 million in addition to the money for her Senate race?
If she doesn't absolutely sweep the first couple primaries and caucuses there will be barrels of blood in the water as the national media stumbles over itself to claim that Clinton has "failed to meet expectations" and is "stumbling". That sort of bullshit.
I don't think either Hillary or Obama can afford to do poorly in all the first few primaries. But then neither can Edwards. Obama and Hillary will likely have bankrolls to keep themselves going even if they fail to blow everyone else out of the water. What's not clear is whether it will be possible for someone to use the momentum from an early surprise to make up for lost ground on fundraising. I think Edwards depends on being able to do that just to stay competitive even if he can pull off an early surprise.
2:33 p.m.
Apr 2, '07
More than the aggregate, it will be interesting to see the breakdown--is Clinton really a corporate tool, or is she doing well in the grassroots? That will tell us as much as the totals.
I think the really big winner is Richardson. He raised twice as much money as Biden, and distinguished himself as something other than an also-ran. I've felt like he would make a wonderful Veep candidate, and this further confirms what I see as enormous strengths.
Apr 2, '07
How much of that money comes from Israel?
3:06 p.m.
Apr 2, '07
Donations made by foreign nationals is illegal. So the short answer is, none.
Apr 2, '07
s Clinton really a corporate tool
Of course she is. You don't raise $26 million in three months from anywhere else. But you don't raise $14 million either. They all are corporate tools to some extent or they wouldn't be viable candidates for President.
Apr 2, '07
On her own she would be a force but we haven't even seen Bill get to work for her yet. We're talking about probably the most liked President since JFK.
I have to disagree with you here, Garrett. Bill Clinton is absolutely detested by a very large number of Americans. Whether that is 40% or 60% I'm not sure, but suffice it to say that Hillary starts at a huge disadvantage, and while Bill can help her with the left, he cannot help her with the middle.
Apr 2, '07
Whether that is 40% or 60%
If I remember the polling its more like 30% and they are almost all hardcore R voters. Basically the Clinton haters are politically irrelevant except as a motivated base.
5:53 p.m.
Apr 2, '07
Of course she is. You don't raise $26 million in three months from anywhere else. But you don't raise $14 million either.
Ross, that's really not true. When Howard Dean raised nearly fifteen mil in the third quarter of 2003 (a record for that quarter, I believe), some substantial portion of it came through small donations via the internet, substantially changing the nature of politics. If a million Democrats make a political donation this year (2% of D voters), it doesn't have to amount to very much per donation for that to be serious money.
6:10 p.m.
Apr 2, '07
>It would be interesting if we had insight into the size of donation, per donor, for the candidates. Candidates who have a higher percentage of smaller dollar donors will be able to hit them again. Max donors can't be tapped again and again like large numbers of smaller dollar donors.
In the email I received from John Edwards today, he says:
Total contributors: 40,000, representing every state of the union Grassroots victory: 80 percent of all contributions were $100 or less
By my math, 80% of 40,000 donors = 32,000 donors
32,000 donors x $100 = $3,200,000
$14,000,000 - $3,200,000 = $10,800,000
$10,800,000 / 8,000 donors = $1,350
That means the average >$100 donation was at least $1,350. (I think we can assume that "$100 or less" means quite a few were less.)
6:33 p.m.
Apr 2, '07
Posted by: Stephanie V | Apr 2, 2007 6:10:57 PM
You're maths not bad, but it also doesn't take into account that unknown aspect I was musing about, repeat small dollar donors. For instance, I have already contributed several hundred to Richardson's campaign )as well as numerous house and Senate races) with monthly ongoing contributions via ActBlue. So in no quarter will I show up as having donated more than $400 to anyone, but over the course of a year I will have donated several thousand to various campaigns, and I can still be tapped next year and again (if need be) come crunch time.
This is the major shift that Dean started in the model of fundraising which we don't have a clear view of still. Numerous small dollar, repeat contributors
6:35 p.m.
Apr 2, '07
ugh...
should read:
My brain and fingers must still be on vacation.
Apr 2, '07
Miles,
Of course Bill Clinton is detested by a large amount of people. I'm sure George Bush is detested by an even larger amount of people. Clinton left office with a 68% approval rating. That is the highest of a departing President since they started measuring it. There may be some people that hate him but I don't think it is going to affect his fund raising abilities. He's laying low until he's finished a book he is writing. Once he's done with that he's shifting into fund raising mode and people will throw money at him. People have good memories of the Clinton years and very recent poor memories of the Bush years. People may feel that by voting for Hillary they get Bill as well. I don't think you can discount Bill's impact on this race. Bill was great w/ moderates. We'll see if Hillary can translate that into votes.
Apr 2, '07
I think everyone is missing a fundamental point -
A couple of years ago, it was generally believed that NO Democrat could ever raise this sort of money, that only Republicans could.
I guess people have figured out that money is power, and power comes from the people.
Apr 2, '07
some substantial portion of it came through small donations via the internet,
I would bet it was very similar to the Edwards donations described above. While he had a lot of <$100 donors, he raised three quarters of his money from large donors.
If a million Democrats make a political donation this year (2% of D voters), it doesn't have to amount to very much per donation for that to be serious money.
They would all have to have given Hillary $25 in the first three months of this year for her to get to $26 million. The reality is that the small donor stuff is mostly window dressing. Its the folks that can give $500 at a pop and more that are funding the campaigns. And those aren't mostly school teachers and hospitality workers.
This is the major shift that Dean started in the model of fundraising which we don't have a clear view of still. Numerous small dollar, repeat contributors
Is this really a shift? That was the model Barbara Roberts used when she ran for Governor. Of course the real money came in when the polls showed her with a shot at winning and that wasn't the small donor crowd. There is nothing new about grassroots fundraising for political campaigns.
Apr 2, '07
A couple of years ago, it was generally believed that NO Democrat could ever raise this sort of money, that only Republicans could.
Didn't Bill Clinton raise this much money when he ran for reelection? What's happening here is that it looks very good for the Democrats to win in 2008 so there are a lot of people who see contributions to the D's as good investments.
9:49 p.m.
Apr 2, '07
Kari - who are you trying to kid? Are you saying people were predicting she was going to raise $50 million in addition to the money for her Senate race?
She was expected to finish 2006 with about $50 million in the bank. She started the year with $5 million in the bank, raised $39 million, and spent $34 million. Unbelievable.
I don't know about you, but I can't possibly figure out how she spent $34 million running against nobody in New York (other than giving away a few million to other candidates.)
10:53 p.m.
Apr 2, '07
Here's the link to the post-election article the NYT printed about where Hillary spent her campaign dollars.
She had only token opposition, but Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton still spent more on her re-election — upward of $30 million — than any other candidate for Senate this year. So where did all the money go?
It helped Mrs. Clinton win a margin of victory of more than 30 points. It helped her build a new set of campaign contributors. And it allowed her to begin assembling the nuts and bolts needed to run a presidential campaign.
But that was not all. Mrs. Clinton also bought more than $13,000 worth of flowers, mostly for fund-raising events and as thank-yous for donors. She laid out $27,000 for valet parking, paid as much as $800 in a single month in credit card interest and — above all — paid tens of thousands of dollars a month to an assortment of consultants and aides.
Throw in $17 million in advertising and fund-raising mailings, and what had been one of the most formidable war chests in politics was depleted to a level that leaves Mrs. Clinton with little financial advantage over her potential rivals for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination — and perhaps even trailing some of them.
For the rest of the article, click on the link above. It's a real eye-opener, at least it was for me. Here's the last paragraph:
Yet Mrs. Clinton has also continued to travel and entertain in style. Around $160,000 was spent on private jet travel for her and her advisers in 2006. Her catering and entertaining bill was at least $746,450, with tabs ranging from a $124,155 bill at the New York Hilton to a $2,500 bill for a backroom fund-raiser at Ben’s Chili Bowl, the famous Washington hot dog shop.
Now I don't know about everyone else who reads this board, but I've been to Ben's Chili Bowl, and mind you it is very good, but the idea of spending that kind of money there absolutely blows my mind.
1:35 a.m.
Apr 3, '07
Wow. $2500 at Ben's Chili Bowl. Here's the menu...
Even if they went all the way for the six-dollar "chili burger sub" - that's nearly 400 of 'em, at a place that only seats 60 in their "cosmopolitan room". And if it was the basic famous chili dog, that's over 700 of 'em.
I like hot dogs, but damn...
1:37 a.m.
Apr 3, '07
Which I guess gets us back to Jeff's original headline...
8:36 a.m.
Apr 3, '07
Jeff, The most interesting story thus far is Romney's crushing of the GOP field. Is McCain dead? He's in third place money-wise and his poll numbers are plummeting.
The coverage of his recent news conference in Baghdad portrays his visit as a joke.
Wow. Tailspinning already ... and how will the nation deal with a Mormon nominee? Will TV Actor Fred or Gov. Tommy save the day?
9:22 a.m.
Apr 3, '07
Ross, I don't have the figures (or the time to dig them up), but a pretty high percentage of Dean's donors were in the under-200 camp. My point was that he proved you can raise serious money and remain a populist. The winner of this election's campaign is expected to raise around $400 mil; a populist could easily raise half that money from donations of less than, say, $500. I would strongly resist calling that candidate a sell-out to "corporate interests" (labor, of course, will donate substantial money). Let's avoid the circular shooting squad, whatsay? The GOP has enough ammo.
Paul--yeah, that Romney figure was surprising. It actually looks like really good news to Dems all around. Romney may be getting the money vote, but he's getting killed in the polls. Hard to see how he becomes the front-runner. Meanwhile, McCain continues to ride the Bush anchor straight to the bottom of the ocean, and a third of Giuliani's support shifts to Fred Thompson by the mere suggestion that he might jump in. If the Dems manage to lose this year, it will be a magnificent achievement.
9:38 a.m.
Apr 3, '07
61% of Howard Dean's money came in donations under $200. 25% came from people under age 25. That was a campaign fueled by pizza money, movie money, and beer money.
As to Paul's point... progressives should fear Mitt Romney. Watch him on C-SPAN sometime. He's astonishingly good on the stump. More Reagan-esque than Reagan, and whip-smart, too. Romney's the only one on their side that can beat us, and this money story is frightening.
Apr 3, '07
"Let's avoid the circular shooting squad, whatsay? The GOP has enough ammo."
Jeff - Wasn't this you? ...
"-is Clinton really a corporate tool, or is she doing well in the grassroots?"
The point I was making was that no one will get elected who is not, in your words, "really a corporate tool" as measured by where they get their money.
61% of Howard Dean's money came in donations under $200. 25% came from people under age 25.
Are you sure Kari? I thought that was the number of donors, not the amounts of money that came in.
Apr 3, '07
The numbers I did find for Dean are from the 2003 first quarter reports. Dean had raised a total of $2,639,209. Of that, $1,824,471 was from contributors giving $200 or more.
I think there has been a lot of mythology about the Dean campaign that was created for political purposes. But you also need a more cold-blooded analysis. I don't think Dean demonstrated that a "populist" can get elected because he was never a populist.
11:18 a.m.
Apr 3, '07
Ross, I was just being flip. No Democrat will get elected who doesn't have some grassroots support and the support of the traditional Dem backers--most of which are not corporations. (Though, interestingly, Dems MIGHT be able to attract corporate dollars from those companies wanting global warming and health care reform. Weird times when the GOP is to the right of corporations.)
And on the Dean stuff, that's just wrong. He was totally a populist (not a liberal, a populist). He didn't spark the populist love until the third quarter, and then got, as Kari detailed, 61% from small donors. You don't get more populist than that. And, as a populist, he ended up where they mostly end up--in the losing column.
Apr 3, '07
Populism, by its traditional definition, is a political doctrine or philosophy that aims to defend the interests of the common people against an entrenched, self-serving or corrupt elite.
The above is from Wikipedia. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that actually describes Dean.
He didn't spark the populist love until the third quarter, and then got, as Kari detailed, 61% from small donors.
I don't believe that number is correct. I think it was 61% of his donors who gave less than $200, not that 61% of his money came from donors who gave less than $200.
He didn't spark the populist love until the third quarter,
The percentage of money he got from small donors in the first quarter was dramatically higher than anyone else in the race. The issue isn't that Dean did not get more from small donors than other candidates. Its that he still got over two thirds of his money from high-rollers. (assuming you consider giving $200+ a year before the primaries to be a high roller).
10:46 p.m.
Apr 3, '07
Well, I'm not going to go back and do it again - but those are numbers I pulled myself two years ago from FEC reports... on the full breadth of his campaign.
I pulled 'em last night from my presentation that I do on internet fundraising.
I'll stand by it, unless someone's got another source.
In any case, I'll repeat the stat: 61% of Howard Dean's money came in donations under $200. That's distinctly different than 61% of his donors gave under $200.
A person who gave $20 a month for a year gave a total of $240 - part of my 61%, but not yours.
I examined the donations, not the donors.
Apr 4, '07
A person who gave $20 a month for a year gave a total of $240 - part of my 61%, but not yours.
<h2>Just to be clear, I don't have a number. I am just operating on memory of how the numbers really added up as opposed to the spin put on them. I don't think breaking up the maximum contribution into a bunch of smaller ones changes much. $100 a pop receptions aren't populated with working stiffs.</h2>