1Q monies raised by the U.S. Presidential contenders

**Pindar** · 04-02-2007, 19:58

GOP top three:

Giuliani: $15 million

McCain: 12.5 million

Romney: $23 million

Demos top three:

Clinton - $26 million

Obama - $22 million

Edwards - $14 million

It is unclear how much of the above is geared only for the Primaries and how much the candidates will try to hold for a later stage. What is declared for the General Election cannot be used prior.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 04-02-2007, 20:03

This shows McCain being marginalized and Romney developing the needed warchest to pull even with Guliani's free coverage.

Edwards showed surprisingly well here given the stumbles his campaign has faced. Obama did exceedingly well to come that close to the Clinton money machine.

**Marshal Murat** · 04-02-2007, 21:12

I think Edwards is crazy for going on.
YOUR WIFE IS SICK.
In sickness and in health?
He probably wasn't going to get to many votes anyway, why keep trying?

Grunt.

**Adrian II** · 04-02-2007, 21:38

What's the story on the big hedge funds bringing in most of the money?

Soros for Clinton and Obama, Singer for Giuliani, etcetera. I know they can't fund the candidates directly with sizeable amounts, but they have a lot of clout among investors and a lot of different ways to 'donate'. Where Singer or Soros go, money follows.

**Hosakawa Tito** · 04-02-2007, 23:16

That's not money, that's free speech.

**HoreTore** · 04-02-2007, 23:22

People running election campaigns should receive the death penalty. Seriously. All it does, is furthering the world to stupidity.

**Adrian II** · 04-02-2007, 23:42

Come on guys, what's up with the hedge funds?
Soros tells the World Economic Forum that he will support Obama or else Clinton, and you hear a giant sucking sound - the sound of Obama's wallet being inflated.
Giuliani cosies up to Singer in his Noo Yohk apartment, and you hear another giant sucking sound - the sound of NY real estate changing hands.
Is this going to be teh battle of the hedge funds or what?

**Pindar** · 04-03-2007, 00:48

Originally Posted by Adrian II

What's the story on the big hedge funds bringing in most of the money?

Soros for Clinton and Obama, Singer for Giuliani, etcetera. I know they can't fund the candidates directly with sizeable amounts, but they have a lot of clout among investors and a lot of different ways to 'donate'. Where Singer or Soros go, money follows.

What you have noted is part of the catastrophe known as McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 04-03-2007, 02:18

I'm not sure of their impact on direct donations. Certainly Soros making such a claim might have influence on others in their choice to donate.

The "independent" hit-squads added by unintended consequence from McCain-Feingold have added a less then charming component to our electoral politics.

HoreTore:

You do realize that money and politics are inseparable, I hope? You don't have to like it -- just cope with it in a practical manner.

**Adrian II** · 04-03-2007, 08:48

Originally Posted by Pindar

What you have noted is part of the catastrophe known as McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

Another problem seems to be the advantage of the incumbent over challengers. Off the top of my head I believe in the last election Bush raised over $100 million and Kerry something like $30 million.

Then again, many financial supporters who contributed to Kerry's campaign contributed even more to Bush's campaign when the Iraq war seemed to be over and his popularity began to pick up.

That phenomenon would suggest that money follows the candidate at least as much as candidates follow the money. And that it's not all one-way traffic in the sense of contributors 'buying' candidates.

**doc_bean** · 04-03-2007, 09:24

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You do realize that money and politics are inseparable, I hope? You don't have to like it -- just cope with it in a practical manner.

Which is why so many countries have decided to let parties use tax money to fund the campaigns and seriously limit the amount of private funds that can be used. That way every party starts out about equal.

Of course, considering the amount of money involved in US elections I don't really see this as an option for you guys

**Yoyoma1910** · 04-03-2007, 09:37

I personally prefer the French elections. It's far more interesting.

**Major Robert Dump** · 04-03-2007, 13:14

I didn't know Bill Clinton was running again, I thought there was some amendment or bylaw that made him ineligible, silly me

**ZombieFriedNuts** · 04-03-2007, 19:33

Why do they need that amount of money? Who are they bribing?

**drone** · 04-03-2007, 20:39

Originally Posted by ZombieFriedNuts

Why do they need that amount of money? Who are they bribing?

They need the money to pay for ads, staff, travel, and littering (roadside signs). The are not bribing anyone, they are being preemptively, speculatively, and "legally" bribed.

The joys of the extended campaigning season. Another year and a half of this crap.