2012 Tuesday: Obama’s failing to out-raise the GOP this time
A little over a year ago, independent analysts were projecting that Barack Obama’s re-election campaign could raise an unprecedented $1 billion. Now, the president’s team is lamenting he may be the first incumbent outspent by his opponent and has taken to asking supporters to forgo wedding gifts and ask their friends to donate to his campaign instead:
How the mighty have fallen.
We can get into the reasons for this drop-off, which includes fewer contributions from donors both large and small, but let’s also get ahead of an emerging meme in the election: that Mitt Romney and the Republicans are trying to “buy” the presidency.
Most of the people making these complaints didn’t have much to say four years ago, when Obama was the first major-party presidential candidate to forgo public campaign financing and outspent John McCain by half a billion dollars, or more than 3-to-1. And few of them will rue the fact that Obama will end up spending about as much money this time, just that Romney will far outpace McCain’s 2008 total and possibly edge the president.
Minus the hypocrisy, I have no problem with the lack of complaints about Obama in 2008. Campaign contributions are a form of political speech, and there simply were more people wishing to speak via their wallets in favor of Obama than for McCain. If McCain’s team thought it could have raised $500 million more in 2008 by forgoing public financing, I expect they would have done so. (If they thought so and held off anyway, well, they sure proved their point, huh?!?)
The fact is that, this time around, Obama has a record as president that he’s having a hard time defending. It appears there are fewer people this time wishing to speak on his behalf via their wallets, and more people speaking in favor of his opponent. If the left didn’t think there was a national campaign-finance crisis in 2008, they shouldn’t think there is one now.
And it’s not as if he isn’t out there trying to raise money. Today’s fund-raisers in Atlanta, among four today alone, bring Obama’s total number of events to 104 this year (more than one every two days) and 171 since he filed for re-election, according to Mark Knoller, White House correspondent for CBS News.
The message just isn’t selling — literally — this go around.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
211 comments Add your comment
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
12:59 pm
look, if you are going to vote Republican then you have to be for making it easier for illegals to get into this country. Those additional people help to keep wages down – this is why Republicans always campaign on limiting the flow of illegals and then all that talk goes away after the election.
Businesses need cheap labor. Republicans know they can fool you folks into voting for them and then completely ignore all the promises they made about stopping illegals.
Happens every campaign cycle.
ragnar danneskjold
June 26th, 2012
1:00 pm
Saw a funny note this morning, that the dems are having to cut the pomp at their convention due to the lack of money. If only they had done something productive about the lousy economy when Chauncey was elected, they would have money running out of their ears.
JDW
June 26th, 2012
1:00 pm
@Finn…
Hey, LBB make mine medium with cheddar.
Pizzaman
June 26th, 2012
1:01 pm
Raising money doesn’t matter any more since the bush court allows mega contributions from rich unnamed persons.
md
June 26th, 2012
1:02 pm
Here Finn, in an effort to not allow yourself to look too silly in the future I’ll post it again for you:
I guess it is after 5 so Finn is gone for the day, but he (and others) might find the info in this book informative in relation to his oft erroneously posted info about red states and blue sates and tax dollars……glance through the chapter titled “Who pays more taxes”……and hint, it isn’t the dems.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Democrats_and_Republicans_Rhetoric_and_R.html?id=96bItJAoRysC
ragnar danneskjold
June 26th, 2012
1:03 pm
And those are some big ears.
Astounding
June 26th, 2012
1:05 pm
md,
Little China people, the media is always to blame, it’s astounding that you are so deluded. the level or your ignorance is simply that….astounding.
md
June 26th, 2012
1:05 pm
“look, if you are going to vote Republican then you have to be for making it easier for illegals to get into this country.”
Here’s a novel idea…..how about making it easier for “legals” to get in and help with the labor if that is what is needed. But I bet if we told the 1/3 that dropped out of assistance program number 1 that there would be no more aid then those jobs may get filled.
md
June 26th, 2012
1:07 pm
“Little China people, the media is always to blame, it’s astounding that you are so deluded. the level or your ignorance is simply that….astounding.”
Insults all you got? Come on, you can do better than that……try putting up a few facts…..I’m ready and willing to see what you have……but I’m guessing you got nothing but insults.
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
June 26th, 2012
1:09 pm
A majority of Americans against the individual mandate and O’Panderer’s immigration ploy equals a Romney white house. The middle is sick of this idiot despite what numbers can be spun.
Just saying..
June 26th, 2012
1:19 pm
Lovely to pretend Sheldon doesn’t expect anything in return…
TRUTH
June 26th, 2012
1:22 pm
LOL.. Thanks Citizen United!!
md
June 26th, 2012
1:24 pm
For the not so bright individual going by the title of “astounding”……educate yourself:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/tdrc/hearings/09sept99/rscott.pdf
And pay close attention to when our wages became stagnant……..and yes, it is the consumer that dictates wages………….
Grasshopper
June 26th, 2012
1:26 pm
“Lil Barry is concerned he will have to compete with hispanics to flip our burgers?”
The tolerant, liberal mind of our friend Finn at work.
Making fun of people that actually work for a living is what gets your juices flowing, eh Finn?
Curious
June 26th, 2012
1:30 pm
Most of the undocumented 16-30 year olds will probably make a more positive contribution those of us US citizens in the same age bracket.
Are we scared to compete or do we believe law-abiding employers will break the law by hiring those illegals?
Never! Right?
Richard
June 26th, 2012
1:31 pm
Kyle,
I think the outrage isn’t on how much money is raised, but in how one corporation can spend enough money to effectively silence millions of people.
Personally, I’d like to see all campaign contributions permanently outlawed.
Junior Samples
June 26th, 2012
1:37 pm
“There go the Democrat sheeple, voting against their own self-interest again”
Thanks for admitting we’re not selfish. Join Us.
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
1:47 pm
Rich said Mitt was the worse choice, he ought to know.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 26th, 2012
1:48 pm
He claims that he created 4 million new jobs. He should ask each of those job holders to give him $10, there is 40 million right there. Since 2 to 3 million of those were given to hispanics, his regime claims, then he could take out an ad on Telemundo and ask they kick back the $10.
Wonder how 2 Varsity chili dogs fit in with the whole “Let’s move” campaign?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 26th, 2012
1:50 pm
I’m not admitting that Democrats aren’t selfish, I’m admitting that they’re hypocrites. You may recall the recent libtard whining that we should vote based on the collective good.
ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT
June 26th, 2012
1:54 pm
Dont worry no amount of money can save Mittens… Losers…
ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT
June 26th, 2012
1:56 pm
Deport the GOP..
Uncle Billy
June 26th, 2012
2:02 pm
I had hoped not to have to point out the obvious to Kyle but..
If voting were done in actual dollars instead of by individual people the Republicans would win every election, especially since the Citizens United decision.
However, this is not the case yet. For instance, they have not yet ruled that makers of products can make any claim about the benefits of these products. (Imagine-”Marlboros will cure cancer!!!)
Also, corporations cannot cast ballots, yet.
Do you get the drift Kyle? It does not seem all that subtle.
But I am sure that Little Barry will find some witty retort. Will You?
Junior Samples
June 26th, 2012
2:04 pm
Kyle,
Your own words contain the truth.
“there simply were more people wishing to speak via their wallets in favor of Obama than for McCain”
Now, we have a smaller number of people that are outspending the many. But somehow, this isn’t anything like ethics reform in Georgia? Either you OK with donors (lobbyists) spending unlimited sums of money to get the influence they want, or you’re not.
Or has the definition of Ethics changed ?
md
June 26th, 2012
2:05 pm
“Also, corporations cannot cast ballots, yet.”
Sure they can…….about as well as “they” do anything else…….corporations are individuals, not a single one of them can do anything without human assistance……..hence the CU ruling…….WE are corporations……………
iggy
June 26th, 2012
2:07 pm
All you State of GA “haters” would surely be more happy elsewhere. Please leave.
Kyle Wingfield
June 26th, 2012
2:09 pm
Uncle Billy: Taking at face value your claim that Republicans always spend more money — which was not the case in the Obama-McCain race, as I already explained, but whatever — your claim undercuts the very point you’re trying to make.
If Republicans always have more money, and if money is so all-important, then how do those poor little Democrats ever win an election? How have they won three of the past five presidential elections, a majority in the Senate that’s lasted six years and a majority in the House four of the past six years?
I had hoped not to have to point out the obvious to you but…
obozo
June 26th, 2012
2:12 pm
td
June 26th, 2012
11:40 am
What would be funny and send a great message would be an organized effort to send 100,000 to 1 million toasters to the WH.
I’ll take all those toasters, td, bring em on.
Say, do you know what the approximate retail value is on them?
@@
June 26th, 2012
2:12 pm
“Obama Event Registry” Hilarious AND pathetic…not to mention tacky. I missed a friend’s wedding this past weekend. Called her to express my regrets. Told her I would make a donation to the Obama campaign on her behalf. Her response?
WHAT!!??!! I’d rather you not get me anything!!! How much were you planning to give? To which I responded
“2 cents if they’ll accept it.”
schnirt
The justification for Citizens United.
Former network producer: ‘I’m done’ denying liberal bias in the media
The left’s outrage should be directed towards their mainstream media, not SCOTUS.
td:
I LUV the toaster idea.
md
June 26th, 2012
2:13 pm
“Either you OK with donors (lobbyists) spending unlimited sums of money to get the influence they want, or you’re not. ”
And again, what is the difference if the 1st amendment gives one or two people more power than the rest of us?
Why should Murdoch (News Corp), Bewkes (Time Warner), Iger (Disney) or any of the others have more say than the rest of us??
It is what it is so the other corps may as well have equal say……….or the 1st needs to be amended.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 26th, 2012
2:17 pm
Can you cook arugula in a toaster?
Kyle Wingfield
June 26th, 2012
2:18 pm
Junior: In the first place, using May as an example: 93 percent of Romney’s donors gave $250 or less vs. 98 percent of Obama’s. That’s not a huge difference.
In the second place, Obama is just as free to call on Soros, Buffett, Clooney, et al. to pony up and match the contributions of Romney’s big donors. Goodness knows they have the money.
Finally, I have explained before the difference imo between campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, but here’s a very abbreviated version: Lobbying is not political speech, and it does not require one to spend large amounts of money.
retiredds
June 26th, 2012
2:18 pm
All that money (on both sides) is buying something. Do you think it could be influence? Here’s one for you: president is in a meeting with the Chinese Premier. Aide comes over and tells the president that his biggest donor in on the line and wants to speak with him immediately. President excuses himself from the Premier and takes the donor’s phone call. Seems the donor was miffed because the president did not support one of the donor’s business deals.
Second issue: it is very humorous to see the Republicans, especially those in Arizona, squirm and rant that they didn’t get the whole loaf from the Supreme Court. Darn those activist judges.
md
June 26th, 2012
2:19 pm
“Can you cook arugula in a toaster?”
One can cook anything in a toaster……the trick is getting it out.
Corn dogs turn out great in a regular toaster.
Junior Samples
June 26th, 2012
2:20 pm
Got it md, you’re OK with it.
Hartsfield-Crooked Mayor Airport
June 26th, 2012
2:30 pm
Kyle,
Any word on where is the best place to invoke our 1st Amendment Rights to give the old “One-Finger Salute” to 0bama JiveTalker’s motorcade, or will The Kenyan’s Gestapo throw us in a secret gulag?
Uncle Billy
June 26th, 2012
2:32 pm
Kyle–PAY ATTENTION!!!! I said if….then. I did not refer to the past. I thought you learned at least to read carefully in journalism school. In history we had to.
I had hoped not to have to point out the obvious to Kyle but..
If voting were done in actual dollars instead of by individual people the Republicans would win every election, especially since the Citizens United decision.
However, this is not the case yet. For instance, they have not yet ruled that makers of products can make any claim about the benefits of these products. (Imagine-”Marlboros will cure cancer!!!)
Also, corporations cannot cast ballots, yet.
Do you get the drift Kyle? It does not seem all that subtle.
But I am sure that Little Barry will find some witty retort. Will You?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
2:33 pm
LOL, Joseph Fried, md?
Here are some of his statistics:
Much of the income disparity between working Democrats and working Republicans is simply caused by Republicans working additional hours per week.
@@
June 26th, 2012
2:34 pm
I’ve posted this before. It’s an excellent read.
The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform
But even as money was becoming more important to campaigns, the Constitution’s limits on government power (which, in the view of the framers, would also limit the power of factions to manipulate public policy) began to fall out of favor in some important quarters. Beginning in the late 19th century, the influential Progressive movement launched a sharp critique of the founders’ notions of enumerated powers and limited government, and even federalism and the separation of powers. Progressive theorists such as Herbert Croly and Columbia University law professor Walter Hamilton railed against the constraints that the Constitution placed on government power. Hamilton argued that the Constitution was “outworn” and “hopelessly out of place.” Croly argued for the need to “overthrow” the “monarchy of the Constitution.” Eltweed Pomeroy — a New Jersey glue manufacturer who became prominent as an author and the leader of the National Direct Legislation League — argued that “representative government is a failure,” and sought ways to bypass the checks and balances of the constitutional system. In short, the Progressives’ goal was a more energetic, less restrained government, which they believed was necessary to meet the demands of a modern industrial society.
It was in this context of hostility to federalism, checks and balances, and limited government that the modern drive to restrict political speech emerged.
Progressives are scary folk.
SBinF
June 26th, 2012
2:35 pm
but the Kool Aid is going to the people who think it’s OK for Obama to raise $750M but a constitutional crisis for Romney to do the same.
————————————————
Romney’s 750 mil is coming from far, far fewer donors than Obama’s 750 mil. If you’re ok with a handful of people financing Romney through an associated super PAC, so be it. But you’re being downright disingenuous to even compare Obama’s method for raising cash (small donors) with Romney’s.
AmVet
June 26th, 2012
2:37 pm
The amount of money spent in an election has absolutely no influence on the outcome.
Are you kidding me, Mr. van Winkle???
WASHINGTON — The historic election of 2008 re-confirmed one truism about American democracy: Money wins elections.
From the top of the ticket, where Barack Obama declined public financing for the first time since the system’s creation and went on to amass a nearly two-to-one monetary advantage over John McCain, to congressional races throughout the nation, the candidate with the most money going into Election Day emerged victorious in nearly every contest.
In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The findings are based on candidates’ spending through Oct. 15, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.
Continuing a trend seen election cycle after election cycle, the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32 settled Senate races. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.html
Uncle Billy
June 26th, 2012
2:38 pm
All you statisticians out there go back to school.
If you give $1,000,000 and I give $1 the average is $500,000.50.
If a million more give $1 then the average is $1.0000000000001.
Remember that Mark Twain said that there are three kinds of lies, “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.”
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
2:38 pm
has taken to asking supporters to forgo wedding gifts and ask their friends to donate to his campaign instead
I’m honestly a little befuddled over the amount of attention this has drawn the past few days.
Maybe a little jealousy on the part of Team Mitt that they didn’t think of it first?
SBinF
June 26th, 2012
2:39 pm
And Kyle you conveniently neglect to add this fact:
Romney’s campaign said 93 percent of all donations came from those smaller donors; the Obama campaign said 98 percent of its donors gave less than $250, a measure that would presumably exclude donations of $250.
But in a telling statistic, the Romney effort said only $12 million, or about 16 percent of its contributions, came from small donors….
————————–
Who cares what percentage of donors give less than $250 if the bulk of his donations come from large donors?
You’d do much better to explain the nuance rather than pick facts to support your position.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 26th, 2012
2:43 pm
If Obozo created 4 million jobs, he must have also destroyed 5 million. According to his own Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are one million fewer jobs today than when Obozo took office.
SBinF
June 26th, 2012
2:43 pm
And this is just too delicious, from the NPR article:
— Update — A blast email from Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, to supporters appears to answer the question as to how much of the $60 million collected in May came from the under-$250 crowd. Messina wrote:
“We know that only 15 percent of Romney’s May totals came from people giving less than $250, compared to 98 percent in that category for us.”
———————————–
So 16% of Mitt’s contributions come from donations of $250 or less, whereas 98% of Obama’s come from donors of $250 or less.
And we aren’t even talking about the PAC stuff, the Pro-Romney pack is financed by a handful of donors to the tune of millions per donor.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
2:43 pm
Obama is just as free to call on Soros, Buffett, Clooney, et al. to pony up and match the contributions of Romney’s big donors. Goodness knows they have the money.
I kinda wish we could stop with the “both-sides-do-it!” assumption that the CU decision was solely about big, glossy Presidential campaigns. It’s also about dinky little state Senators and such, being subject to threats of well-funded (and for now, utterly anonymous) attack ads if they don’t toe the line.
I don’t know why this kind of logical outcome doesn’t bother people on both sides of the aisle.
I do know why corporate media don’t want to focus on the small-ball aspect; they stand to make a ton of money from the potential ad revenues.
td
June 26th, 2012
2:51 pm
AmVet
June 26th, 2012
2:37 pm
The amount of money spent in an election has absolutely no influence on the outcome.
Are you kidding me, Mr. van Winkle???
WASHINGTON — The historic election of 2008 re-confirmed one truism about American democracy: Money wins elections.
Excellent!!! This means Romney wins in a landslide. Thank you for sharing this wonderful news.
wallbanger
June 26th, 2012
2:52 pm
Obama supporters don’t have money to donate to his campaign. Now, if they could spend foodstamps to do it then he would get more contributions. His voters are so dumb and prejudiced that no amount of reason will cause them to change their vote anyway. They will always go for the black, liberal, muslim/union/illegal-loving President. Even though they can’t get a job, and never will, and their education is horrible. These people think the golden goose will infinitely produce. They are wrong as Europe shows us.
JDW
June 26th, 2012
2:58 pm
@Kyle…”using May as an example: 93 percent of Romney’s donors gave $250 or less vs. 98 percent of Obama’s. That’s not a huge difference.”
Actually it is a very big difference. As the NY Times notes…
Obama has raised $260 million so far and 54% of that money came from donations of under $200. At the same time the campaign has only raised 18% of that total from those donating $2500.
Romney has raised $122 million so far and only 15% of that total has been generated by donations of $200 or less. 54% of Romney’s totals come from donations of $2500.
Simply put Romney is rasing his money from far fewer people donating much larger dollars. Thats before the “Corporations are people toos” hogwash is factored in which will greatly exacerbate the gaps in average donation size between the candidates.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance