Tuesday, 04.08.08
McCain's Money
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images
As Marc Ambinder reports, the McCain campaign raised only $4 million online and through direct mail. Barack Obama, meanwhile, has over 1.3 million donors, a number that will surely increase if he wins the Democratic nomination. So far, McCain has caught a lucky break.
Despite her best efforts to win the nomination, Hillary Clinton has become a stalking horse for conservatives who hope to highlight Obama's not inconsiderable weaknesses. At this point, every cent spent she spends can be added to McCain's fundraising haul.
And yet that won't be enough, particularly if Clinton leaves the field in the middle of May. It seems that McCain is counting on Obama to abide by his pledge to accept public financing provided his Republican opponent does the same. But of course Obama would be mad to stand by this fanciful pledge. Had Ulysses S. Grant pledged to fight the Confederacy with an army of toddlers armed only with bayonets, forswearing the use of the North's industrial might and its adult males, we'd think less of his prudence and capacity for judgment. Similarly, it would be awfully strange for perhaps the most successful small-donor fundraising effort in history to call it quits halfway through the game, all in the name of fair play. How exactly would McCain object if Obama breaks the pledge? After all, Obama has refused to accept money from lobbyists. The bulk of his money will come from hard-working moms and dads and idealistic young people. Surely these small donors aren't a corrupting influence. Yes, McCain can call Obama a flip-flopper or a cheater, just as Democrats railed against Tom DeLay for his redistricting efforts in Texas. But superior virtue didn't change the facts on the ground. This kind of procedural debate has no resonance with voters, nor should it. The McCain campaign is setting itself up for a fall. But why?
Rather than hope public funds or a gang of beleaguered Bush bundlers will come to the rescue, the McCain campaign needs to at least try to beat the Obama campaign at its own game.
Another miracle?Patrick Ruffini delves into the serious question facing the Republican Party: "One can win a primary on fumes, but can one win a general election that way?" |
The missing pipelineSean Hackbarth thinks that if McCain improved his anemic online fundraising, he could focus on his strengths: stumping, speaking, and campaigning. |
An uphill battleAndrew Sullivan argues in the Times that talk of this election as "McCain's to lose" is nonsense: he simply doesn't have the money. |
(19)
Lets dispel the mythos that Barack Obama is only taking donations from small, middle-class American donors. He does have an impressive small donor base, that is true. But its not the whole story. He's not taking money from corporations, but then again, no one is - that's illegal. But he is taking money from their executives and employees, bundled together. In fact, some of the key industries he proposed to regulate are giving him a whole lot of cabbage. Plus, throw in a few hundred thousand trial lawyers and ponying up for him and you don't exactly get a clean candidate.
And this isn't even mentioning the enormous amounts of union and 527 money that will be raised in support of him... or doesn't anyone consider labor and public sector unions "special interests?"
The Senator got his start by taking cash from an apparent racketeer in Chicago. Where exactly is the evidence that something has changed?
So what city are you working for in the Obama Campaign Robert100? You brought me to tears...of laughter with this "reclaiming America" Sorry, but America stands for liberty and capitalism. Neither of which can stand on the dependent government working class mentality of the Democrat Party. Give me what I deserve, will be heard most if you ever work with people to receive help from the government.
Robert, I do not know where you get your information from but opensecrets.org and other political watch groups have continuously noted that Obama has received money from hedge funds, oil companies, and the like. It is great that he has been able to raise so much money on the Internet (although he is not my candidate), as I am always for greater poiltical participation; however, I think you are spreading inaccuracies by posting the above comment.
It was reported recently that "wallstreet" is giving most of their money to Obama, knowing he will most likely be the next president. So they are hedging their bets. Ditto that for the pharmaceutical industry as well. Also keep in mind that many of the donors are members of moveon.org which have their own agenda which is to move America into a socialist country because the America as we know it today with all its warts will be significantly changed when Obama and his supporters get into power. As much as the republicans have been in power the country as a whole is moving towards a country that expects entitlements. Kids don't expect to actually pay for college themselves, because either mom and dad will do it for them, or they will look to the other "daddy" which is the government to pay for college AND living expenses. What I wish more than anything is to have a candidate run that will tell the truth to all voters that the bank is broke. It is time for local governments to raise money within a community to get the improvements needed and stop looking at "daddy" to pay the bills. It is time for voters to not expect to have everything given to them and maybe to learn to live with a lot less. We are a nation obsessed with material wealth and wanting and expecting more instead of feeling satisfied for a job well done.
Obama is not getting money from lobbyists, and the amount PAC's are donating to his campaign is miniscule compared to McCain's and Clinton's donations from PAC's. Obama is getting contributions from Wall Street firms and surprisingly people associated with several major universities, as his top donors. Several of the Wall Street folks were major Bush donors in 2004, which doesn't bode well for McCain's chances to tap into Bush's fundraising base.
More than half of Obama's money comes from people giving less than $100 dollars.
He does get money from corporations, as measured by top executives and employees giving money to him since corporations can't directly fund a candidate, but he IS not taking money from lobbyists and he doesn't seem to need to kow-tow to special interests, as much as McCain (who has done this in the past, think Keating Five) or Hillary, since his financial support mostly from small donors.
He really could be a President free from having to balance the needs of special interests, who got him elected, against what would be best for Americans, because most of his money is coming from "ordinary" Americans, giving small amounts of money.
Reihan Salam (Is that an Arabic name?) wrote:
After all, Obama has refused to accept money from lobbyists.
That is because it is illegal to accept money from lobbyists. Hillary and McCain did have not accepted money from lobbyists either.
I wonder if all this money for Obama collected on the internet is as clean as they would have us believe. We worry about hackers, viruses, identity thiefs etc. so just how hard would it be for automated lobbyist giving to Mr. Obama. Its not like dead people have never voted in Chicago.
Oh wait Obama is from Chicago..my bad
Dept of Labor employee:
Every four years we get all caught up in the myth that one party is the answer to our problems. This is the ultimate dependency - we on the fantasy, the Parties on us buying the fantasy.
You serve your master well.
Obama is an unaccomplished, unexceptional individual that has never made a single sacrafice for his country yet spends every Sunday clapping his hands and singing hallelujah while his pastor shouts out a chorus of "Blame America" and "Hate Whitey".
This America-hating coward will never be president no matter how many 100s of millions he spends to try to fool the voters.
Yes, Obama would be crazy to take public funds. Obama can raise at least 500M. And McCain can't raise the money he needs to compete from contributions. If McCain can continue to pull in $15 M per month, he can get $105 M, which is more than the 80M that public funds make available. However, I personally doubt that he can keep up a rate of $15M/mo. 11M of that came from fat-cats who gave the most allowed and thus cannot give again. I think he pulled out all the stops to get the 15M now in order to induce the general public to feel better about giving him a contribution. No one wants to give money to a candidate who is certain to lose. By pulling in 15M he might be able to get the small donor portion of 4M to go up a bit. In the end, I suspect that McCain will not raise more money than public funds provide, and he will take the 80M.
Obama's source of money is unique and he is largely unencumbered. His model of many unrelated small donors is real. Its what the public finance system hopes to be.
Don't be misled by the bad information in these comments. Just because opensecrets.org "aggregates" donor data base records by employer, doesn't mean IBM employee donations are "bundled" donations from the computer industry. This is the fallacy being propagated by individuals here, based on Clinton campaign memo which implies "employer-aggregated" data base records are "bundled" donations. They are not.
Using this criteria, the largest special interest donor to each campaign is "retired" followed closely by "homemaker" but this doesn't mean that Presidency is the pawn of a vast home-maker conspiracy.
Open secrets has no way of knowing which donations are bundled and which are not. Nor does the Clinton campaign. Nor do you.
Large corporations show up as being those employers whose employees give the most total amount of INDIVIDUAL contributions, because 1.) donors are required to disclose employer, 2.) Large companies employ the most people, 3.) Large financial service firms pay the most amount of money to employees who can make maximal INDIVIDUAL contributions.
(Venture Capital firms pay even more money, but they are small limited partnerships, so these firms aren't large enough to make the top)
If you want to know what kinds of legal donations Obama does not take go here: https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dt275?source=mainnav
JayHawk Phrenzie --
unaccomplished, unexceptional? You made me laugh out loud. Obama has held two positions -- Editor of Harvard Law Review and Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago that are exclusively for accomplished and exceptional people. Both posts have been held by many of the most brilliant legal minds. Add to that being elected Senator in one of our largest states against a formidable primary field and writing a best selling book. And then there is the masterful campaign he has run.
You also know very little about Trinity Church and have not bothered to find out anything about it beyond highly edited sound bites.
I know Barack Obama and he IS exceptional, accomplished, and patriotic.
Rod said: Reihan Salam (Is that an Arabic name?) wrote: After all, Obama has refused to accept money from lobbyists. That is because it is illegal to accept money from lobbyists. Hillary and McCain did have not accepted money from lobbyists either.
Rod, you're wrong. In fact, it's not illegal for Hillary or McCain to accept money from lobbyists; both of them do.
And, your questioning whether the writer of this post is Arabic has relevance how, exactly? (I mean, other than to reveal some of your own xenophobic tendencies?).
ILDem :
I guess to a party that considers John Kerry a war hero, Obama may seem exceptional, but he really has accomplished nothing.
He walked into his Senate post unopposed after a Democrat dirty trick squad got the goods on Ryan. He has accomplished nothing in the Senate.
He was never a "Constitutional Law professor", he was in fact a Lecturer. University of Chicago, Democrat hacks are trying to redefine the word "professor" much as an earlier Dem tried to redefine the word "is".
Obama is an attractive Con man that will easily entrance the Democrat party, but will not pass the muster of mainstream America. His gifted speaking abilities and deep voice do little to mask his radical leftist policies that would lead America down a failed marxist path.
Highly edited sound bites?
Did the Reverend Wright say:
"NO! NO! NO!, GODDAMN AMERICA"
"THE US OF KKK A"
"The CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST" as he gleefully smiles over the burning corpses of 3,000 Americans less than a week after they were killed.
And for 21 years Obama has nodded while this Minister of Hate spread this garbage to poison the minds of an entire community.
There is no context that makes those vile sermons of hate acceptable. And there is no excuse for Obama to support this bile for over two decades.
The Libs were shocked when Gore lost. They were amazed, blown away when Kerry lost.
And later this year, you will be absolutely stunned that Barack lost. You will scream that the "ELECTION WAS STOLEN" and all non Democrats are Racists and other of the same old tired BS.
But none of it will be true, Obama will lose, because America is too smart in the year 2008 to fall for this con man. I believe in my fellow Americans and I believe they will never allow this Marxist into the White house.
Jayhawk, think Barack believed as the Rev Wright did? You sound like the typical hatefilled Rush Limbaugh loving moron that elected GWB twice and probably think he's a great president. Man, your koolaid supply must be getting low, the way your going thru it, wake up man, your a neanderthal.
It doesn't matter if he personally believed as Wright did or not, he condoned it by attending his church for all those years.
Imagine if McCain had attended a predominately white church for 20+ years whose preacher ripped on the country as deserving what it gets for accepting homosexuality, illegal immigration, feminism, illegitimacy in the black community, etc. Do you think McCain could just say, he's like family to me, I can't disown him and get a pass?
Romney outspent McCain 3 to 1, and still lost to him. I think the "change" most people want, after 16 years, is a grown-up in the White House.
I think our economy sucks and gas prices need lowered. thank you and have a nice day!!!
Sincerly, Ryan Silvester
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
When Barack Obama decided to run for president, unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he made the significant decision that he would not accept campaign contributions from lobbyists, special interests, and political action committees for his presidential campaign. It was Barack Obama�s judgment that it would be preferable if the next President of the United States were elected without being beholden to money peddlers in Washington or anywhere else. Barack Obama�s belief that together ordinary Americans can do extraordinary things has been ridiculed by his opponents as �just high sounding words� and �big talk from a pied piper�. But when 1 million ordinary Americans use their credit cards and each gives $25-50 dollars with the click of a mouse to raise $25-50 million dollars for Obama�s campaign without the help of special interests, political action committees, lobbyists, $1000 a plate dinners, or huge contributions from American billionaires most of us think that�s pretty extraordinary. Suppose Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for president at the Democratic National Convention in August, and suppose on November 4, 2008 the majority of Americans decide to vote for Barack Obama, the presidential candidate who among many other things has refused to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists but has financed his campaign solely from the contributions of people to whom he is accountable, people like you and me. Furthermore, suppose this idea of raising money for political campaigns directly from the voters to whom the candidate is accountable sits so well with the American people that they come to expect that future presidential candidates as well as candidates for other offices such for the US Senate and House of Representatives will do as Barack Obama has done. What if candidates who continue to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists find it increasingly difficult to get elected? Would that help or hurt democracy in America? That�s the kind of change that Barack Obama represents which concerns so many in Washington who aren�t very eager for the American people to reclaim their democracy from the influence of money peddlers, individuals who currently make arrangements to provide huge amounts of financial support to political candidates whom they believe have a good chance of winning and whom they can then �work with� later on.
Don�t let fear and hate mongers, talk radio hosts, smooth talking politicians, or anyone else do your thinking for you. We are at a historic moment in America. Barack Obama is a very special candidate for president who can bring about significant changes in Washington and help ordinary Americans begin reclaiming their democracy. Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr. knows this and has recently endorsed Senator Barack Obama, recognizing Obama�s integrity, intelligence, and the strong leadership he can provide as president. It is time for voters in Pennsylvania and in the remaining states that will soon vote in the presidential primary election to stand up and be counted. It�s time for ordinary Americans to begin the process of reclaiming America.
Posted by Robert100 | April 8, 2008 2:43 PM