Updated: New York, Mar 22 18:06
London, Mar 22 22:06
Tokyo, Mar 23 07:06
By Jonathan D. Salant
Dec. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Presidential candidates spent $1.7 billion in the 2008 U.S. election
campaign, more than double the amount four years ago, Federal Election Commission filings
show.
President-elect Barack Obama, the first major-party nominee to reject federal funding for the
general election, spent $740.6 million. That eclipsed the combined $646.7 million that
Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry spent four years
earlier.
The FEC filings, covering the campaigns through the end of November, marked the first time
that total spending by all presidential candidates surpassed $1 billion.
“A billion dollars may not go far to bail out Wall Street, but it’s still an enormous sum for a
presidential race,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive
Politics, a Washington-based research group.
By contrast, all candidates spent a total of $820.3 million in 2004 and $500.9 million in 2000.
Obama’s fundraising was a key to his emergence from the pack in the early primaries. He raised
$24.8 million during the first three months of 2007, leading the field of Democratic hopefuls
including New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who took in $19.1 million.
“His early fundraising, particularly his ability to match Senator Clinton, immediately separated
him off into the top tier,” said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College in
Waterville, Maine.
Other Candidates
In any other year, the fundraising by Clinton and Republican nominee John McCain would have
stood out. Clinton spent $250 million, compared with Kerry’s previous Democratic record of
$228.4 million.
McCain spent $227.7 million; among Republicans, that was second only to Bush’s $269.4
million in 2004.
Arizona Senator McCain, unlike Obama, accepted $84.1 million in public financing for the
general election, a decision that barred him from raising money privately. Obama outspent him
by a 4-1 margin between Sept. 1 and Nov. 24, FEC records show.
McCain had little choice than to accept the taxpayer money, said Julian Zelizer, a professor of
history and public affairs at Princeton University in New Jersey.
“It’s not clear he would have been able to sustain sufficient levels into November,” Zelizer said.
“Also, for McCain to reject the campaign finance system he has staked his reputation fighting for
would have devastated any chance for him to use his maverick argument.”
Borrowed Money
The Arizona senator paid back the $3.9 million he borrowed that helped him win the New
Hampshire primary. Clinton last month wrote off the $13.2 million in personal loans she made to
her campaign.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who loaned his campaign $44.6 million, and
former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who loaned his campaign $800,000, still have their
loans on the books. Federal election law limits repayment of such personal loans by the
candidate to $250,000. Romney previously said he would forgive the loans.
With so much money raised privately, the amount of taxpayer funds spent on the 2008 election
fell to $104.6 million from $176.4 million in 2004.
Most of the top candidates in both parties -- Obama, McCain, Clinton, Giuliani and Romney --
shunned taxpayer matching funds that would have limited their spending in the primaries.
Broken System
“These presidential public funding figures make it official,” Krumholz said. Public campaign
financing is “broken.”
Senator Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who with McCain co-sponsored the 2002 law
banning corporate, union and unlimited individual donations to the political parties, has
introduced legislation to revamp presidential financing and increase public funding.
Obama, Clinton, Vice President-elect Joe Biden and Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois,
the next White House chief of staff, are co-sponsoring the overhaul measure.
The League of Women Voters, Democracy 21 and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group are
among the organizations urging congressional overhaul of campaign financing.
“The way Washington works is not going to change until we fundamentally change the nation’s
campaign finance laws,” they said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at
jsalant@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: December 26, 2008 14:50 EST
AIER AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH
Fit for a King: Presidential Campaign Spending
Written by Richard M. Ebeling
Wednesday, 13 August 2008 03:41
George Washington may have shunned the opportunity to become king of the United States, but it
is nonetheless the fact that the expenses of running for the presidency nowadays are costs truly fit
for an emperor.
Indeed, these expenditures have exploded over the last several presidential election cycles. In 1992
total spending by all presidential candidates came to a little over $192 million. Eight years later, in
2000, they had grown to more than $343 million. So far in 2008, all candidates that have been
running for this highest office had spent almost $834 million, practically a two-and-a-half fold
increase since the last presidential race – and this year’s campaign still has several months to go!
So far this year, all of the presidential contenders combined have spent the equivalent of .06 percent
of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product in trying to win the brass ring to the White House. This means
that we are that much poorer in terms of real goods and services that might have been produced if
that $834 million had been used in private-sector business activity geared toward consumer demand
instead.
To win the Democratic Party nomination, Barack Obama has spent, through June 2008, over $267
million, with an additional $71.6 million in cash on hand. His leading opponent in the primaries,
Hillary Clinton, spent more than $233 million.
Over on the Republican side, John McCain expended almost $110 million to win his party’s
candidacy, and had $35.6 million available in cash at the end of June. McCain’s closest rival in the
primaries, Mitt Romney, spent $107 million in his unsuccessful bid for the nomination, with $35.4
million coming out of his own pocket.
Ron Paul, with his very successful online fund-raising effort, raised $35.5 million, in spite of the
relatively low number of votes he accumulated in the Republican primaries. His far more votersuccessful
opponent, Mike Huckabee, only got $16 million in donations.
Through the end of July, the Democratic Party has raised over $416 million, and has spent a bit less
than $300 million with well over $100 million in cash for the fall campaign.The Republican Party
has raised $457 million, almost 10 percent more than the Democrats, and has spent $337 million
with about $129 million in ready cash.
Where have the donations come from, geographically? The top five states with generous
presidential campaign contributors have been: California ($92.4 million); New York ($82 million);
Texas ($41 million); Florida ($39.2 million); and Illinois ($30.7 million).
Based on data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, the table below shows the leading
sectors from which the two major parties have raised these huge sums of money.
For the presidential candidates, respectively, the sectoral donations have come from the following
sources:
The Democratic Party in general as well as the Obama campaign have been succeeding far better
than the Republicans and McCain in raising money from their diverse sectoral and professional
groups. Certainly in those sectors from which the largest contributions have come –
Communications/Electronics; Financial/Insurance/Real Estate; Lawyers/Law Firms; and Misc.
Business; and “Other” – the Democrats and Obama have been heads-and-shoulders over the
Republicans and McCain.
Some historians and contemporary political commentators have referred to America’s “imperial
presidency.” Certainly in terms of the vast sums of money expended in pursuit of winning the
White House it reflects the high authority that the office represents to those handing over their
private dollars to the candidate of choice.
It also tells us how much centralized power has come to reside in the office of the president that so
many citizens consider it so important to invest in assuring that the person sitting in the Oval Office
will use that power to serve their interests rather than someone else’s.
We have come along way from the earlier conception of government under which all citizens
possessed equal rights under the Rule of Law, with favors for none at others’ expense. If that older
conception of government and the presidency still prevailed there would be no need to invest so
much in deciding who will become the Chief Executive of the United States.
Source:
http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/449-fit-for-a-king-presidential-campaign-spending
(accessed March 22, 2009)
Interest-Group Campaign Spending Nears Record
Figure for First Time
Could Top $1 Billion;
IRS Reports on 527s
By T.W. FARNAM and BRODY MULLINS
February 5, 2008; Page A13
Wall St Journal
Spending by interest groups in the current presidential campaign is on pace to far exceed
the record amount spent by outside groups in the last presidential election -- and could
top $1 billion for the first time, according to new campaign-finance reports.
The data show that spending by 50 of the largest independent political groups -- ranging
from American Federation of Teachers on the left to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on the
right -- jumped to $130.8 million in 2007, up 55% from 2003, the year before the last
presidential election. There were 28 groups that spent more than $1 million each on
politics in 2007, twice as many as in 2003, according to the reports released this week.
If that pace continues in 2008 -- and there is every indication that it will -- the amount of
money spent by interest groups to influence elections will exceed $1 billion. Outside
political entities spent at least $800 million during the 2003-04 campaign season.
OUTLAYS SOAR
The News: Fifty of the largest independent political groups spent $130.8 million
in 2007, up 55% from 2003.
Background: Groups called 527 organizations drew criticism for their spending
when they came to the fore in 2004.
What's Next: Interest groups are on pace to spend more than $1 billion this
campaign season.
The figures come from new disclosure reports released over the weekend by the Internal
Revenue Service. They cover one large set of outside political groups that are called
Section 527 organizations for the name of the tax code under which they were
incorporated.
Groups formed under Section 527 are obligated to make public their donors and
spending. In 2004, the 527 organizations spent $650 million on elections, according to
forms the entities are required to file with the IRS.
Spending by another type of interest group, Section 501(c) nonprofit corporations, wasn't
included in the IRS report because they don't need to disclose their spending for the most
part.
Although no disclosure is required, a Wall Street Journal survey of the largest 501(c)
political organizations found $150 million in campaign spending by the organizations in
2004, and that those entities also plan a huge increase in spending this year. Just
one of these 501(c) organizations, the conservative Freedom's Watch, plans to
spend as much as $250 million on the election.
The 527 organizations were widely criticized for injecting big money into the
political system when they first came to prominence in 2004. In August, the
Federal Election Commission fined the largest Democratic group, America
Coming Together, more than $775,000 for accepting large donations from
donors with the premise that the money would be used to defeat President
Bush. The fine amounted to less than 1% of the $78 million that group spent in
2004.
Among Section 527 groups, a new Democratic organization called the Fund for America
plans to spend $200 million in this election cycle. The group, formed in November, is run
by John Podesta, a former chief of staff for President Clinton; Rob McKay, a prominent
Democratic philanthropist; and Anna Burger, the secretary-treasurer of the Service
Employees International Union. The SEIU gave $2.5 million to the effort. Hedge-fund
manager George Soros, who bankrolled massive campaign efforts in 2004, also gave $2.5
million.
Another 527 organization, run by the SEIU, spent $14 million in 2007, more than any
other organization, though it didn't make the list of top 527 organizations in 2003. Seven
of the top 10 organizations were liberally oriented, the same as in 2003.
The reports showed a large amount of spending by another Democratic group, America
Votes. The group, which tries to coordinate get-out-the-vote efforts among independent
progressive groups, spent $5.4 million in 2007, according to the filings.
It paid $459,000 for services from Catalist LLC, an organization that uses corporate
marketing techniques to find Democratic voters and get them to the polls on Election
Day.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, in late 2006 formed a group called
American Solutions for Winning the Future, which spent $6.8 million in its first year of
operation. The group's largest expenses were $1.2 million for telemarketing and $1
million for services of Moby Dick Airways, a charter-jet company.
That group's largest donation was $1 million from Sheldon Adelson, owner of the Sands
Casino. Mr. Adelson was the second-largest individual contributor to 527 organizations
last year, after Mr. Soros.
1
MORE ON ELECTIONS
• Complete coverage: Campaign 20082
• Washington Wire: Updates from campaign trail3
Mr. Adelson is also backing Freedom's Watch, the group that plans to spend as much as
$250 million this election. Freedom's Watch, which is active in the Iraq war debate,
comes under the 501(c) tax rules, so isn't required to file disclosure.
Hotel and casino executive Bill Young, real-estate developer Fred Godley and hedgefund
manager Donald Sussman each gave $1 million as well to 527s.
The newly filed reports show that the group called Alliance for a New America, which
ran advertisements backing John Edwards's presidential bid, spent a total of $4.1 million
last year, more than the $2.4 million already reported to the Federal Election
Commission. The group's largest donations, $3.5 million, or 73% of the total, was from a
partnership whose sole member was Bunny Mellon, the wife of late philanthropist Paul
Mellon.
A Republican group called the Presidential Coalition LLC spent $3.7 million, about half
for polling, but rent and salary expenses were sent to another group called Citizens
United, which recently produced a movie critical of presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton. A separate political arm of Citizens United recently paid $100,000 for television
advertisements against Arizona Sen. John McCain.
527s Committees
Top 50 Federally Focused Organizations: 2008
527 groups are tax-exempt organizations that engage in political activities, often through
unlimited soft money contributions. Most 527s on this list are advocacy groups trying to
influence federal elections through voter mobilization efforts and so-called issue ads that tout or
criticize a candidate's record. 527s must report their contributors and expenditures to the IRS,
unless they already file identical information at the state or local level. The figures below are
taken from 527 group filings with the IRS. (To view 527s for state party or candidate
committees, such as the Republican Governors Association and the Democratic Governors
Association, click here.
For ease of identification, the 527 organization names used in this section are those of the
connected organization, rather than the official name of the 527 account. For example, the "NEA
Fund for Children and Public Education" is simply listed as "National Education Assn."
2008: Top 50 Committees
Committee
Total
Receipts
Expenditures
Federal
PAC
2004
Major Player
Profile
Service Employees International
Union
$27,432,667 $27,839,177 X X
America Votes $25,959,173 $24,491,324 X
American Solutions Winning the
Future
$22,722,547 $22,966,088
EMILY's List $13,659,555 $12,910,515 X
The Fund for America $12,142,046 $12,142,044
GOPAC $9,322,764 $9,407,146
Patriot Majority Fund $8,266,627 $8,108,121
College Republican National Cmte $6,826,285 $7,537,976
RightChange.com Inc $6,736,563 $5,578,187
Citizens United $6,477,080 $6,016,215 X
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers
$5,686,540 $5,892,463 X
Club for Growth $5,001,412 $5,930,565 X X
Alliance for New America $4,890,621 $4,890,620 X
United Brotherhood of Carpenters $4,461,701 $2,207,336
United Food & Commercial
Workers Union
$4,376,008 $4,701,030 X
Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund $4,262,817 $6,143,620 X
Committee
Total
Receipts
Expenditures
Federal
PAC
2004
Major Player
Profile
Majority Action $3,896,000 $4,002,351
Friends of Fred Thompson $3,462,355 $625,743
American Leadership Project $3,459,035 $3,451,887
National Public Education Action
Fund
$3,300,000 $401,463
ActBlue $3,169,517 $3,375,159 X
Citizens for Strength and Security $3,153,000 $2,996,457
Public Campaign Action Fund $2,948,345 $3,018,270
Young Democrats of America $2,728,207 $2,848,073
Laborers Union $2,584,940 $2,547,876 X
Alliance for North Carolina $2,455,000 $2,462,621
National Education Assn $2,224,145 $2,561,624 X
Citizens for Progress $2,172,432 $1,978,486
Progressive Media Action $2,124,430 $2,124,430
Sheet Metal Workers Union $2,042,664 $2,007,978 X
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $1,747,079 $1,556,645 X
Unity 08 $1,584,539 $1,731,571
League of Education Voters of
America
$1,546,300 $1,376,772
Pioneer Majority $1,541,921 $1,507,085
League of Conservation Voters $1,508,635 $1,386,825 X X
National Federation of Republican
Women
$1,287,763 $2,987,436 X
California 2008 GOP Delegation
Corporate
$1,281,425 $1,069,008
American Dental Assn $1,219,616 $1,372,598 X
Grassroots Democrats $1,201,181 $1,259,806 X
Ironworkers Union $1,174,896 $1,295,399 X
Foundation for the Future $1,105,000 $1,097,265
Democrats 2000 $1,067,500 $333,468
Planned Parenthood $950,000 $988,996 X
CA Corrections Peace Officers Assn $946,180 $3,840,215
Illinois Hospital & Health Systems
Assn
$883,168 $1,380,678
Democracy for America $820,150 $820,149 X
Defenders of Wildlife $700,000 $820,448
Committee
Total
Receipts
Expenditures
Federal
PAC
2004
Major Player
Profile
American Family Voices Voters'
Alliance
$651,025 $645,278
Blue Texas $637,075 $36,181
BornAliveTruth $617,772 $864,730
This data is based on records released by the Internal Revenue Service on Monday, February 16,
2009.
Source: OpenSecrets.Org, http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.php (accessed March 22,
2009).