Author Topic: But, of course, those on the left are gonna keep on claiming the opposite...  (Read 1523 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
I'm sure we're gonna keep on hearing about how the Republicans are better finanaced...

Presidential Hopefuls Increase Spending

Jul 16, 6:29 AM (ET)

By JIM KUHNHENN

WASHINGTON (AP) - It didn't matter whether they raised more money or not, most presidential candidates certainly boosted their spending in the second quarter of the year.

More on staff. More on travel. More on consultants.

Democrats outraised Republicans about $80 million to $50 million from April through June. But Republicans kept pace with Democrats on spending - nearly $50 million spent on both sides.

The Democrats' money advantage was helped in large part by the extraordinary fundraising of Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. He raised $32 million for the primary; she raised $21.5 million.

But even as they raised more money, the better financed Democrats were chary about spending it all.

Obama, the freshman senator from Illinois, spent half of what he raised in the second quarter. Clinton spent 60 cents for every primary dollar raised. John Edwards raised $9 million and spent $6.4 million.

That was not the Republican model. John McCain raised $11.3 million and spent $13 million. Mitt Romney had to lend his campaign $6 million to stay even with his spending for the quarter. The pattern was similar among GOP candidates with lesser finances. Only Rudy Giuliani, the Republican with the most cash on hand, kept his spending below his fundraising.

Obama and Clinton ended the quarter with $34 million and $33 million in the bank, respectively - formidable figures for two of the leading Democratic White House contenders.

The Republicans' penchant for spending beyond their fundraising was especially apparent with McCain, the senator from Arizona. The McCain camp ended up spending more in the second quarter and raising less, even though their first quarter fundraising had left them with less cash on hand than Romney or Giuliani,

McCain's payroll alone was the highest of all presidential candidates except for Obama's for the first six months of the year. He ended the quarter with $3.2 million cash on hand and nearly $1.8 million in debts. McCain's biggest debt was $750,000 owed to an Internet consulting firm connected to his new campaign manager, Rick Davis.

Payroll was by far the single largest expense - about $16 million total for all candidates in the second quarter. Romney spent the most of all on advertising - about $5 million. Consultants of all stripes were popular, particularly financial consultants, who earned a total of more than $3 million from various candidates.

Travel took its toll on budgets. Candidates altogether spent more than $8 million to get around the country. Some got better deals than others. John Edwards paid $230,660 to fly on a private jet owned by Dallas trial lawyer Fred Baron, Edwards' national finance chairman.

Obama's campaign paid nearly $3 million for travel during the quarter and spent about $1.3 million in telemarketing, one of its top single expenses. Clinton listed $1.1 million in travel expenses and $380,000 owed to an air charter company. She also listed a $421,873 debt to the firm owned by her pollster, Mark Penn, and $132,000 owed to the firm of her media adviser, Mandy Grunwald.

In fundraising, Obama and Clinton saw a virtual reversal of donors. While she relied heavily on Wall Street and high-finance money in the first quarter, it was Obama who tapped the banking and hedge fund crowd in the second quarter. Employees at Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan Chase gave heavily to Obama, while employees at two major law firms, DLA Piper and Kirkland & Ellis, were among Clinton's top donors.

Obama, however, retained an advantage over Clinton in the number of donors who could still give to his campaign. About $3 our of every $7 raised by Obama's campaign for the primary came from donors who have given the maximum $2,300 donation permitted by law. For Clinton, about three-fifths of her primary donations come from maxed-out donors.

Overall, attorneys topped the list of donor occupations for most Democrats, with homemakers not far behind. For Republicans, homemakers led the list, with attorneys not far behind. Homemakers are a common occupation in political fundraising because donors usually team up with their spouses to maximize contributions.

---

On the Net:

FEC: http://www.fec.gov

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070716/D8QDKHNG0.html
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
You won't hear anything from me.  Of course, the Dems are going to raise more money this year because Hillary's already been slated to win.  She can't be the front runner for a year and still win.  She has to let Obama get out there and look like he has it then come from behind like an underdog.

We should have absolute limits on how much can be spent on political campaigns.  The fact that a billion dollars goes into getting someone elected president is evidence that the system is corrupt.  The SCOTUS got it wrong.  Money is not free speech.

There should be a limit to the whole thing or there should public finance campaigns ONLY. 

Personally, I think candidates should just A) have a website where they post videos about their views, B) Weekly debates (not press conferences) where the candidates actually have to talk to one another and come to conclusions/compromises ON TV IN PRIMETIME, and C) every candidate should have to travel to every state in equal amounts to the same venues that are open to all people to come and ask questions in an all day forum with bathroom breaks and lunchtimes.

And there may need to be a law against mudslinging.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
I couldn't agree more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not believe for one second that all the contributions to the GOP are made public.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
I do not believe for one second that all the contributions to the GOP are made public.

Ditto goes for the Democrats
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
I do not believe for one second that all the contributions to the GOP are made public.

Ditto goes for the Democrats

Which is why the most simplest remedy to such, on BOTH sides, is FULL DISCLOSURE of all contributions received.  No need for McCain-Feindgold, or any other effort at trampling on the 1st amendment.  No need for "Public Financing" where the Media then have a monopoly on framing issues and candidates.  Simply FULL DISCLOSURE.  Please, someone on the left explain how that doesn't solve the supposed corruption of Politicians by $$$
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
, B) Weekly debates (not press conferences) where the candidates actually have to talk to one another and come to conclusions/compromises ON TV IN PRIMETIME,


This is a very good suggestion, I would endorse it without reservation and I would want to have minor party and dark horse canadate speakers show up too, if not with equal time , with at least time representative of the population that they represent.


Quote
And there may need to be a law against mudslinging.

I would fight that to my last breath.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
And there may need to be a law against mudslinging.

That pretty much prevents.......everyone from running, since the ALL do it.

Ironically, nor would I support such an afront to the 1st amendment
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle