Posted on 02/21/2016 7:31:30 AM PST by TigerClaws
The candidates for president and their big-money allies have spent more than $682 million through the end of January, according to federal disclosures. But money hasn't bought success.
There’s one area where Donald Trump is badly trailing the field — spending ― and that makes his resounding wins in South Carolina and New Hampshire all the more frustrating to his Republicans he’s trouncing and worrisome to the party leaders trying to block him from winning the nomination. According to a POLITICO analysis of reports filed Saturday with the Federal Election Commission, through the end of January the campaign of the billionaire real estate showman had spent a total of $24 million. That’s less than half as much as the rivals who finished in a distant second-place tie behind him in South Carolina, Marco Rubio (whose campaign and super PAC and non-profit allies have spent $76 million) and Ted Cruz ($60 million), the analysis found. Early in the presidential nominating process, Trump and his anti-establishment counterpart on the other side of the aisle Bernie Sanders are completely upending conventional thinking about campaign financing in the big money era sparked by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. 20160220_hillary_clinton_5_ap_1160.jpg 2016 Clinton defeats Sanders in Nevada By KYLE CHENEY Neither man has the support of a dedicated super PAC like those buoying their rivals, and both have essentially declared war on the deepest pocketed donors in their respective parties. Instead, they have pioneered alternative means to power their campaigns ― albeit utilizing vastly different models ― and have shocked the political establishment with their success. Trump has reached into his own pocket to loan or donate $17.8 million to his once-quixotic campaign, accounting for most of the $26 million it has brought in, though it continues to accept a trickle of donations that totaled $941,000 in January. He has shelled out $7.6 million on an advertising campaign that he joked was probably a waste of money, given how well he was doing without spending money. But his finance reports show a campaign that relies more on splashy rallies that drive television coverage than on ground organizing. It has spent $2.1 million on events and $1.4 million on his now iconic “Make America Great Again†hats, versus $2.4 million on payroll and field organizing. Sanders has built a more conventional campaign infrastructure. His campaign, which powered him to a runaway win in this month’s New Hampshire primary, spent $82 million through the end of last month, including January payments of $13.9 million for media, $6.9 million for digital ads and consulting, and $4.4 million for payroll. His overall spending is second only to the Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, whose campaign and super PAC allies have combined to spend $101 million, according to POLITICO’s analysis. But the ways in which Sanders and Clinton are raising their cash couldn’t be more different. A staggering 70 percent of Sanders' campaign’s money comes has come from donations of $200 or less, most of which are delivered online or in response to emails and text messages devised by a sophisticated digital operation that is breaking new ground in low-dollar fundraising. Just 1 percent of his donors have reached the $2,700 contribution limit, according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC filings, meaning that the campaign can continue turning to them for cash again and again. On the flip side, less than 17 percent of the $130 million Clinton has raised this cycle has come from small donors, while about half has come from maxed out donors. That puts Clinton, a longtime darling of the party’s biggest donors, under pressure to expand her small-donor base, lest Sanders continue to outraise her, like he did in January. Soon after the Associated Press declared Clinton the winner of Saturday’s Nevada caucuses, her campaign texted supporters urging them “to say you’re with Hillary†by donating $1. “Together, we can win the nomination, but only if we all pitch in.†Her campaign finished January with a healthy $33 million in the bank, though it also reported owing $1.1 million in debt, including $377,000 to a charter airplane service, $218,000 to her ad buyer and $117,000 to the firm of her pollster Joel Benenson. And the former Secretary of State also donated $100,000 of in-kind payroll, benefits and computer equipment to her campaign, bringing her total self-funding to $468,000 for the cycle.
But perhaps the best example of the limitations of big money comes from Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida. He suspended his campaign for the GOP nomination on Saturday night after placing a distant fourth in South Carolina, despite a campaign and a super PAC that combined to spend $125 million through the end of last month. Rival fundraisers immediately began making appeals to Bush’s major donors. But several of them expressed leeriness about stroking more big checks, given the utter failure of Bush’s deep-pocketed apparatus to build popular support for Bush. “I’ve got to reassess my understanding of the process, and how it’s worked this time. It has worked so much differently than it has before,†said Fred Zeidman, a Houston private equity investor who donated to Bush’s super PAC and campaign, and also raised money for the campaign. “I still don’t fully understand the successes of the non-traditional candidates on both sides. There is a new paradigm, and I think we’ve got to wait until this whole thing is over ― until after the election ― and see where this took us.â€
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/super-pac-fec-campaign-spending-2016-219579#ixzz40oifcIoV
Trump is on schedule and 40 million under budget. Would it be nice if government ran like that.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
He’s re-writing the rules and that is an earth-shaking development for the political and liberal elites.
Go Trump! Go!
Trump is on schedule and 40 million under budget. Would it be nice if government ran like that.
Rewriting without paragraphs, it would appear.
And for the Sake of Pete, John, the character set issue is becoming unbearable.
With the media on his side.
Yes and this is stuff the general public does not know, but will. And it will be Huge!
Maybe if the conventional campaigns had spent money as if it were their own they would have had better results too.
I may detest his being a liberal Democrat but Trump runs a tight ship.
It gives us an insight into how he would run the country.
ON TRUMP'S SIDE?? They've done everything they can to prop up other campaigns and marginalize him. Recent example....using that bogus NBC/WSJ poll as a true result, while ignoring all of the others.
Trump has been the dragonslayer. The more stuff they throw at him, the more impressive he is at fighting back.
Folks are beginning to say "yeah, Trump's the guy who can stand up to Putin"
The media has been trashing him every step of the way.
FovNews election moderators practically had tears in their eyes last night. They looked like they were at a wake.
Media on his side?
If you can find ten positive articles about him from the thousands of negative ones, I’ll be quite surprises.
Median on his side?
Yikes!
Some folks would call that a conservative value.
Yea, you want to work for Trump, you’d best bring your A game.
Paragraphs would be nice.
When you are a media made celebrity and have the instant name recognition he has, you don’t have to spend money.
One of Bernie’s favorite campaign topics is campaign finance reform so Wall Street doesn’t buy our candidates. Guess he hasn’t noticed the GOP front runner is self funded.
I wonder if acknowledging the will of the people has anything to do with it?
“He has shelled out $7.6 million on an advertising campaign...”
I can’t remember the channel...Fox or CNN...but one of the talking heads was discussing the amounts candidates had spent on advertising. The guy said Bush had spent 88 mil, I think...and Trump had spent 8 mil.
I just laughed. That has to put the fear of God into the piglets (both commercial and civilian) currently sucking on the government teat.
If all it took was money, we would have had a President Perot and a President Forbes.
It takes more than money. It takes a message. Just ask Jeb!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.