Monday, April 16, 2007

FEC Filings:

Primary Money Raised this quarter:
Obama: $24.8 million
Clinton: $19.1 million
Richardson: $6.2 million

Giuliani: about $12 million on hand
Romney: about $12 million on hand
McCain: $5.2 million on hand

Edwards: $10 million on hand

More info:
"But Clinton established a solid overall financial advantage by transferring $10 million from her Senate campaign account and limiting her spending -- in part by carrying $1.6 million in debt, including money she owes to several key advisers. She also raised $7 million that can be spent only if she becomes the nominee."


Megan B said...

This again IS NOT A QUESTION! Plus we already answered how we feel money will affect the '08 race, and if we feel it should. So since I am not feeling incredibly creative today my question is: Opinion: WHO do you feel will be impacted the most positively and negatively by the amount of money they are able to raise? Along with from whom the money came?

I think that Hillary will be most affected negatively, since yes she does have a lot of money from her lists, compiled while living in the Whitehouse, the majority of her donors have already maxed out, and with the former president's lists the money will be seen as "old money." She has lots of money, but not as many loyal "grassroots" type of supporters. Her money situation further shows that, to use Bill's old slogan, she's more of the same vs. change.

As for who benefits that's a good question. I feel raising money just to show that a candidate is supported, not because they really need millions of dollars to "get their message out," is wasteful. News flash, a microphone or better yet a bullhorn, and standing in the center of a busy city, where the media would be sure to follow a candidate, does not cost even a couple hundred dollars. To much money causes waste when the money could go toward less wasteful causes. With the millions most major candidates already have, who knows what our nation could have, maybe a new cure for a disease. But enough of my rant and back to the question, I think anyone who would enter the race later such a Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich would benefit, because if they would raise money to run a competitive campaign it would not just be a waste of time raising money they wouldn't use, since their process would have to be streamlined to "catch up" to those already in the race.

P.S. next week someone else, preferably a memeber of the class, PLEASE take some initiative and write a's that hard

KimK said...

I don't agree that Hilary will be negatively impacted by the amount of money she can/has raised. I think Hillary is a candidate that many people in the country already have a strong opinion about - some strongly dislike her while others love her. She has already raised a large sum of money, which will help her even if she doesn't continue to raise as much in the future.
The idea to use the money raised for campaigns to cure a disease would be interesting - a candidate could spend all of his/her funds on curing a disease and then a small percentage on advertising that he/she was the one that made the cure possible! Well, that would be cool in theory, anyway.

katie kso said...

Personally, I feel that no one will be negatively impacted by the amount of money they are able to raise. I think that the more money they have been able to riase the better it is going to look to voters. People could see these FEC Filings and think that if Obama and Hilary already have this much money they must be doing something right. It kind of says that the more money these candidates have, the more people there could be supporting them. I feel that the amount of money the candidates raise, if it is a large amount, will probably only help them.