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
td
June 26th, 2012
2:59 pm
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
2:43 pm
Sounds like to me that what you are saying is that we have a great deal of Dumb masses that are to lazy or stupid to do a little research and make up their own mind about a candidate.
HR Pufnstuf
June 26th, 2012
2:59 pm
Kyle your argument goes nowhere. Obama outspent McCain because the PEOPLE donated their money to him, not just a few rich donors that will try to buy Romney this election. Give me a freakin break!
@@
June 26th, 2012
3:01 pm
From the author of the “National Affairs” article which EVERYONE, thus far, as refused to read.
It’s THE AMERICAN PEOPLE who cast the votes!
Newsflash: First Amendment Upheld
An end to giving political speech less protection than pornography.
Much of the opposition to Citizens United is simply the opposition of the political left to what they perceive corporations will say. Consider campaign finance “reform” organizations that have long been supported by corporations. New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice has received support, for example, from a rogue’s gallery of corporate America, including Enron and Bear Stearns. Never has the public heard a peep from this organization about whether all shareholders in these corporations actually support the center’s agenda.
Or, for that matter, consider John McCain’s Reform Institute, founded to promote campaign finance reform after his 2000 presidential run. It has received funding from AIG. Did all AIG’s shareholders approve?
Similarly, much of the criticism focuses on the perception that Republicans will be the winners if corporations and unions are unshackled. President Barack Obama, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez all announced that they would be looking for ways to limit corporate expenditures.
But the First Amendment is all about distrusting government to make those decisions about who has spoken too much. That’s why Thursday’s decision is such a breath of fresh air.
td
June 26th, 2012
3:01 pm
JDW
June 26th, 2012
2:58 pm
Of coarse that is going to be true when you are the President of the parasites of society that only want more programs so they do not have to work.
JDW
June 26th, 2012
3:12 pm
@TD…”Of coarse that is going to be true when you are the President of the parasites of society that only want more programs so they do not have to work.”
…and I am sure you call yourself a “good Christian” while spouting such drivel.
td
June 26th, 2012
3:15 pm
JDW
June 26th, 2012
3:12 pm
@TD…”Of coarse that is going to be true when you are the President of the parasites of society that only want more programs so they do not have to work.”
…and I am sure you call yourself a “good Christian” while spouting such drivel.
So you can not be a good Christian and speak the truth at the same time?
SBinF
June 26th, 2012
3:17 pm
Hey td, who did Jesus hang out with?
Oh right…the perceived parasites in society.
God bless you.
JDW
June 26th, 2012
3:18 pm
@TD…”So you can not be a good Christian and speak the truth at the same time?”
You are going to start telling the truth?
When?
Kyle Wingfield
June 26th, 2012
3:20 pm
SBinF @ 2:39: No, what I did was limit my analysis to apples-to-apples comparisons: Number of donors vs. number of donors. Your comment brings in a different element for Romney but not for Obama…and then accuses me of picking facts.
Btw Messina, in the quote you cite @ 2:43, appears to be making the same apples-to-oranges mistake/spin.
JDW
June 26th, 2012
3:26 pm
@Kyle…”No, what I did was limit my analysis to apples-to-apples comparisons: Number of donors vs. number of donors.”
The NY Times bit I posted is direct apples to apples…Romney is raising his money from fewer larger donors.
SBinF
June 26th, 2012
3:28 pm
Kyle your posting is on the amount of money each candidate is raising, not the number of donors. Looking at who is donating and how much provides a bit of context in your argument that Obama is being out raised. Yes, Obama is being out raised. Romney is receiving large contributions from a small number of people. And again, we aren’t even discussing money going into super PACs. Adelson has pledged 100 million himself. Do you contend that his 100 million has nearly the same level of support as several thousand people giving smaller donations?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 26th, 2012
3:36 pm
Why do the libtards all of a sudden have a problem with free speech?
td
June 26th, 2012
3:40 pm
SBinF
June 26th, 2012
3:28 pm
Using your logic then since Obama has more donors then he has more higher intensity voters and should win with the more voters. If this is the case then why are you so worried about Obama not raising as much money as Romney?
td
June 26th, 2012
3:42 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 26th, 2012
3:36 pm
Why do the libtards all of a sudden have a problem with free speech?
Libs have always had a problem with true free speech. See the fairness doctrine and political correctness for examples.
Kyle Wingfield
June 26th, 2012
3:44 pm
Now, as for the broader question of whether it matters if the money comes from small donations or large ones: No, it doesn’t.
Money is money, and its ability to influence voters is the same no matter where or who it comes from. Money certainly has influence, although it’s likely not as great as many people make it out to be as long as each candidate crosses the minimum threshold needed to get his or her message out. I have no doubt that both Obama and Romney will cross that threshold, just as Obama and McCain both did in 2008 — particularly since opinion polls suggest only about 10 percent of voters are undecided at this stage.
In any case, there’s a great deal of spin and myth-making about Obama’s 2008 effort. As the NYT reported after the election, many of the famed “small donors” to Obama actually gave multiple small donations — so that their total gifts place them out of the “small donor” category. In fact, his true percentage of small donors was similar to that of McCain in 2008 and of both Bush and Kerry in 2004. Given this way of looking at things — the aggregation of small donations by some people — there isn’t much point yet in looking at small vs. big this year, when those small donors still have plenty of time to give again.
What’s more, the study on which that report was based also noted:
“Finally, Obama received about 80% more money from large donors (cumulative contributions of at least $1,000) than from small donors. While the large donors thus were responsible for much more of Obama’s money than either his small or middle range group, he received somewhat less proportionally from large donors than did his rivals or predecessors. Forty-seven percent of Obama’s money came from large donors compared to 56% for Kerry and 60% for both Bush and McCain. However, because Obama’s 47% is based on a larger total, that means he also raised significantly more large-donor money in absolute terms than any of his rivals or predecessors.”
So, Obama in 2008 had the lowest percentage of his money come from large donations in recent history, but raised more money in absolute dollars from those large donors than any of his contemporaries did. In other words, the small-donations-good/big-donations-bad line of argument is an artificial, meaningless distinction.
Kyle Wingfield
June 26th, 2012
3:46 pm
SBinF @ 3:28: Yes, the OP is about total money. Someone made a point about small donors, and I responded to that. For more, see my 3:44.
Kyle Wingfield
June 26th, 2012
3:47 pm
JDW @ 3:26: See my 3:44. Looking at these things is pointless at any time imo, but it’s super-duper-pointless in June of the election year, when these “small donors” have time to give more and graduate to “larger donors” — as many of Obama’s donors did in 2008.
nomobama
June 26th, 2012
3:54 pm
Cause nobody in their right frame of mind would support a constitution-ignoring marxist dictator.
td
June 26th, 2012
3:55 pm
Kyle Wingfield
June 26th, 2012
3:44 pm
Excellent job Kyle on debunking the myth.
SBinF
June 26th, 2012
3:55 pm
“Money is money, and its ability to influence voters is the same no matter where or who it comes from.”
And this is the far more damning assertion.
Romney has the money advantage because (as with the primary) he has a small base of donors willing to give unending cash to see him elected. The money given to Romney’s campaign will pale when compared to cash funneled into Restore Our Future.
Now, it remains to be seen how a money advantage for either candidate will translate into votes. Obama’s been running a ground game in key states since 2008. Mitt has, well, at least been running for president since then.
I suppose that’s another discussion for another day.
md
June 26th, 2012
4:10 pm
“Got it md, you’re OK with it.”
If “it” helps level the playing field, then yes I like it better than the alternative…..which was total domination by the media moguls…….
Junior Samples
June 26th, 2012
4:11 pm
Kyle,
Actually it is a big difference.
In May (as an example), the President raised $38M, 43% from small individual contributions.
Mitt Romney raised $23M, 12% from small individual contributions.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php
The President could call on wealthy Democrats to help out. But he hasn’t. Yet. And for that I am thankful.
While it might be your opinion that lobbying does not require large sums of money, it certainly doesn’t hurt. If you’re willing to state that money doesn’t talk in politics, I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in.
@@
June 26th, 2012
4:13 pm
Former U.S. President, Jimmy Carter is accusing the current president of sanctioning the “widespread abuse of human rights”…
I’ll say!
schnirt
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 26th, 2012
4:15 pm
If Oblamer had gotten out of the way, the economy might have improved and helped his base. Everything he has done, i.e, Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, and increased regulation on energy production has restrained the economy. He is reaping the results.
He is suffering because his supporters are the hardest hit by this economy. Young, Black, and Hispanic unemployment is far worse today than in 2008, so not only do they lack the funds to donate, they probably lack the will.
Business, which usually plays both sides, knows the importance of defeating this disaster, so they are not playing his side, with their usual largess this time.
md
June 26th, 2012
4:22 pm
“Young, Black, and Hispanic unemployment is far worse today than in 2008″
And blind ignorance will still vote for the guy……..they too have no clue that his big programs are sucking the needed capital out of the private sector, and as things get worse, the benevolent uncle sugar will suck out even more life.
md
June 26th, 2012
4:29 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.”
Not necessarily, as physical dollars are not the only factor in that equation……much of the money used in campaigns go toward ads in the media, all over the country…..so one must also factor in the additional cost not seen in the form of the media pushing their own agendas….be it left or right.
md
June 26th, 2012
4:32 pm
Good ole Finn…….ridcule the author vs the source…….the info comes from the tax foundation and actual gov’t surveys and quotes from employees of same.
Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t mean poo pooing the author nullifies the legitimacy of the source…….unlike that link you posted about the stimulus where the facts were wrong……there is a difference.
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
4:36 pm
Money is money — yea right and all customers get treated the same… youth….
John Galt
June 26th, 2012
4:36 pm
“Gonna be funny when Obama spends less money but still wins.”
If this was true, Obama would not be using it as part of his campaign to get more donations.
Or are you saying that he is trying to manipulate his own supporters?
John Galt
June 26th, 2012
4:40 pm
“If you really want to get down to it, elections should be publicly funded. Based on the race the same amount of money should be given, from tax revenues to each qualified candidate.”
Never…
We are not even able to challenge the qualifications of a candidate in this environment.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 26th, 2012
4:46 pm
md
Finn, aka Cheesy Grits, creates his own reality, aka self delusion. Getting close to 5, he is probably headed out the door by now.
John Galt
June 26th, 2012
4:48 pm
“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.”
We can add to that Billy’s math skills. Do you work for the CBO?
retiredds
June 26th, 2012
4:48 pm
Here’s an example of free speech: If I give $100 to a politician’s reelection campaign will he return my phone call to discuss an issue? If I give $10,000,000 to a politician’s reelection campaign will he return my phone call to discuss an issue?
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
4:56 pm
dds, for 10 mil, they won’t spit the bit as they say with horses…
retiredds
June 26th, 2012
4:56 pm
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — More than 5.2 million Medicare beneficiaries have saved a total of $3.7 billion on their prescription drugs since the health care reform law went into effect, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Monday.
md
June 26th, 2012
5:11 pm
“More than 5.2 million Medicare beneficiaries have saved a total of $3.7 billion on their prescription drugs since the health care reform law went into effect, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Monday.”
And the question one would have to ask oneself is where did that 3.7 billion go? Somebody paid for it…..don’t you want to know who??
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 26th, 2012
5:23 pm
“More than 5.2 million Medicare beneficiaries have saved a total of $3.7 billion on their prescription drugs since the health care reform law went into effect,
Yep, the libs love this program and expand it at every opportunity, Medicare Part D, however, they turn around and blame W for its existence. So, which is it, a good program or another Bush disaster. Depends on which day of the week and what the subject is.
This socialistic program is adding tremendously to our debt for which they blame W. Its benefits are wonderful they claim, giving credit to Oblamer. Another big government program that is pushing us over the financial cliff.
td
June 26th, 2012
5:24 pm
retiredds
June 26th, 2012
4:48 pm
Here’s an example of free speech: If I give $100 to a politician’s reelection campaign will he return my phone call to discuss an issue? If I give $10,000,000 to a politician’s reelection campaign will he return my phone call to discuss an issue?
If I went to school with, belonged to the same civic organization, was in monthly party meetings with, went to church with or lived on the same street with a politician then that politician would pick up the phone and listen to an issue I wanted to talk about without any money given to him/her.
Have you ever picked up a pen and written your congressman or Senator a letter? I have and they have always returned one to me. Sometimes they do not agree with my position but there return letters or emails tell me that they read my points.
Sandra
June 26th, 2012
5:27 pm
Every one in this country ought to be very afraid about all the millions of dollars that are being contributed to these races in secret(all republicans). There is enough corruption today. If these people like the Koch brothers and all the others giving secretly to their ’cause’ they they should be man or woman enough to own up to it. We are losing our democracy as we sit here on our thumbs. There should have been mass protests to the Supreme Court with this Citizens United and then not revisiting the stupid thing. Don’t blame the President for the country going to the dogs….blame corruption and secret money. So yes he will be outspent simply because most democrats have a moral objection to the secrecy. On the other hand, these guys that are so focused on hate and getting Obama out of office are the ones you should really be worried about. People don’t give money like that out of ‘patriotic’ duty. They expect favors and control in return. God help this country because Republicans and their minions on the Supreme Court won’t.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 26th, 2012
5:29 pm
“Don’t blame the President for the country going to the dogs”
Yeah, ’cause ignoring the laws of this nation is such a great way to inspire the rest of us.
md
June 26th, 2012
5:34 pm
Sandra is outraged at all the secret money but nary a peep about declaring executive privilege when looking for answers on F&F or the circumvention of congress in the case of doma and illegal immigration…….sad. but comical.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 26th, 2012
5:34 pm
Sandra: Every one in this country ought to be very afraid about all the millions of dollars that are being contributed to these races in secret(all republicans).
—————————
Why? Is it your belief that political spending influences how people vote? Do political ads influence how YOU vote?
td
June 26th, 2012
5:35 pm
Sandra
June 26th, 2012
5:27 pm
How are we now in any worse shape then we have been in for the past 100 years? The rich have always controlled the agenda based on their philosophy. It is no different now then it was 100 years ago. When is the last time a person, not from the top 1% and did not attend an Ivy league type school was President?
md
June 26th, 2012
5:45 pm
“Claire McCaskill to skip Democratic National Convention”
Interesting how these middle of the road dems are trying to distance themselves from Obama….I can understand the guys from WV though:
“This is a war against our jobs, our families, our communities and our way of life in the coalfield region ofAppalachia,” said West Virginia Senator Art Kirkendoll (D-Logan). “The United States Department of Environmental Protection has declared war and we must stand up and send a message that we will not let them take our jobs, harm our families and communities and try to destroy our way of life.”
Skip
June 26th, 2012
5:48 pm
Give each of them $300 mil to run the campaign, prove your good with money.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 26th, 2012
5:51 pm
Sandra is outraged at all the secret money but nary a peep about declaring executive privilege
Where was your outrage the 16 times Bush declared Executive Privilege ?
Didn’t think so .
If you cant see that Romney and his cronies are trying to buy America. You are blind.
Thank god he isn’t going to win.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
June 26th, 2012
5:54 pm
Obama lead growing in Florida.
He wins that state and its …
Game Over.
md
June 26th, 2012
5:59 pm
“Where was your outrage the 16 times Bush declared Executive Privilege ?”
What does it do for you when you put words in others mouths?? It makes you look silly, that’s what it does.
As for my answer, if Bush used it in an attempt to cover up corruption or ineptitude, I condemn it…..as I would with any president not being forthright with the American people…….as I do now with Obama.
md
June 26th, 2012
6:02 pm
And an fyi……Bush used it 6 times, not 16. Clinton used it 14 times…….this is Obama’s 1st……
1961_Xer
June 26th, 2012
6:06 pm
““More than 5.2 million Medicare beneficiaries have saved a total of $3.7 billion on their prescription drugs since the health care reform law went into effect, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Monday.”
yep, and Medicare is $3.7 billion dollars closer to insolvency…that, or someone else has to pay off that $3.7 billion. So what’s your point? That 5.2 million folks got a benefit, or that the system is one increment closer to insolvency/overhaul. I ask because those are the only two current options.