September 29th, 2007
08:10 AM ET
11 years ago

Clinton and Obama to raise in the $20 million neighborhood

Sens. Obama and Clinton will raise comparable amounts during the third quarter of this year.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Fundraising dropped off dramatically for the two leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, but Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama will still report raising in the neighborhood of $20 million each over this three month time period, sources close to both candidates tell CNN.

Clinton will show she has pulled in between $17-$20 million, while Obama will report he raised between $18-$19 million. Fundraising is historically slow in the third quarter, which covers the final two months of summer and the first month of fall. In the second quarter, Obama shattered fundraising records by reporting that he raised $32.5 million, $31 million of which he could use in his bid for the Democratic nomination. Clinton raised $27 million during this same time period, and all but $6 million of it could be used in the primary.

There are still three days remaining for candidates to raise money for this fundraising period.

On the Republican side, Arizona Sen. John McCain is expected to show he raised more than $5 million this quarter, but a McCain advisor noted that his recent poll numbers in New Hampshire and a busy fundraising schedule next month shows that they “have some life.” Sources close to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani suggest that he will lead the GOP pack in fundraising this quarter, but would not reveal their fundraising totals.

- CNN National Correspondent John King

soundoff (33 Responses)
  1. James, Phoenix AZ

    How much did Moveon.Org contribute to each campaign?

    Does the figure include subtracting out $850,000 of illegal contributions to Hillary?

    September 28, 2007 05:35 pm at 5:35 pm |
  2. Robert, Shelton CT

    Surpizing to me is that Obama is able to keep up his fundraising, Rudy on the other hand I think is about to crash and chance in hell can he win the social conservative vote. That means it will either be Fred or Mitt; and neither of them can win in a general election. Huckabee might be able to be the dark horse in this race.

    September 28, 2007 05:39 pm at 5:39 pm |
  3. Daniel, NY

    If Obama raises more than Clinton for the third straight quarter, he would certainly get some momentum again after reports of his negative trendline in NH and in uninspiring debate performance in Dartmouth.

    September 28, 2007 05:42 pm at 5:42 pm |
  4. Garrett Indianapolis, IN

    Ron Paul is going to show better than McCain and Thompson. Will you're fair and balanced company reflect this in more press? No, not unless the OK from above is given and it won't be... We rely on the media for our information, please respect this and give him the attention and presence that he warrants.

    September 28, 2007 06:04 pm at 6:04 pm |
  5. James, Phoenix AZ

    Democrats must begin to wonder – what does all this money really "buy" them?

    2 years ago Democrats promised to change what's happening with the War in Iraq (Pelosi & crew). Nothing happens.

    Now the Democrat candidates make headlines by scourging the Administration, General Petreaus, and demand troop withdrawals. Yet in the last debate – NONE of the leading democratic candidates would commit to having all the troops out of Iraq.

    The fundamental charge against the Bush Administration was how we "took our eye off the ball" (Afghanistan) to go after Saddam. We hear the candidates tell us how THEY would clean up the mess. Yet this week the Democrat-lead Congress passed a resolution classifying Iran's elite guard a 'terrorists organization' – giving President Bush the latitude to treat Iran's military just like Al Qaeda. Basically – they gave Bush a green light on Iran.

    I hear lots of rhetoric – but I'm not seeing any action. At LEAST with President Bush – for all his foibles, failures, etc – you KNOW what you're working with.

    September 28, 2007 06:31 pm at 6:31 pm |
  6. A. Thomas, New York, NY

    As past elections show, raising most money does not necessarily translate into votes.

    While Obama has rasied the most money in the past 3 quarters, he has managed only to get about half of what Hillary gets in the dem natioal nomination votes (39% vs 20%) and the spead appears widening, if the votes were to held toay. In other words, Obama has failed to get his message across to these dem voters, or these dem voters do not think Obama is electable, i.e., he cannot beat the republican nominee in the next general election.

    True, Obama is more likeable than Hillary, especially in the eyes of other dem candidates' supporters and of the republicans. Reasons: The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

    September 28, 2007 07:02 pm at 7:02 pm |
  7. dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD.


    I don't think so: if Sen. Obama keeps significantly outraising Sen. Clinton, but Sen. Clinton keeps significantly outpolling Sen. Obama, this proves that Sen. Obama isn't translating his fundraising numbers into votes. Sen. Clinton doesn't need more money than Sen. Obama to win, just enough money to run her campaign. She seems to have that.

    Plus, if CNN's estimates are right, Sen. Obama would only be outraising Sen. Clinton by a small amount (if any), which would show that his fundraising is on a downward trend.

    September 28, 2007 07:30 pm at 7:30 pm |
  8. John, Fairfax VA

    James, what do you think Clinton or Obama are going to change? The war in Iraq? They didn't even show up for the vote today and subsequenty it was voted to increase the funding AGAIN! They are the same, Republican or Democrat.

    September 28, 2007 08:18 pm at 8:18 pm |
  9. lavelle Rochester,ny

    wow for someone to be soooo behind in these ratings he sure seems to keep up the funding! hmmmmm could these polls be wrong??? lol GO OBAMA!

    24,000 in NYC!

    September 28, 2007 09:15 pm at 9:15 pm |
  10. Keith Franklin, Tn

    Hey...James of much did the "Swift Boat" people raise for much did Rove raise to send over 400 people down to Florida in 2000. That dog ain't gonna hunt anymore when you trash the DEMS and expect them to take it.

    With the pundits watching every move and Faux news on hand...I am sure the money will be properly accounted for. By the way, James...who do you support?...or you just another attack dog

    September 28, 2007 09:25 pm at 9:25 pm |
  11. ronnie - knoxville, tn.

    these double digit millions being bandied about are making me swoon. just like hollywood movie star salaries; WHERE exactly does this money go ? cnn, fox, msnbc... etc etc etc. ?? this is big business – someone is getting awfully rich off this whole campaign thing

    September 28, 2007 10:53 pm at 10:53 pm |
  12. Maria, Houston

    Daniel from NY,

    those debates are like speed-dating. What can we truly learn about a person in 30 seconds? Most of people take longer to choose from a restaurant menue. That's not the way to choose the U.S.President... The original TV debates between top two condenders were perhaps more revealing, but these heavily moderated sessions of 6-10 heavily scripted and trained candidates are worthless. The only real debates are held afterwards by political pundits to help them justify their existence and high pay.

    September 28, 2007 11:02 pm at 11:02 pm |
  13. R. Snowden Charleston, S.C.

    I can't believe that anyone would really be so misinformed as to believe that Obama and Hillary are "just what America needs"... you have to be insane or very uninformed.
    Besides, all this money is being WASTED! Think of all the good that could be done with it. If I were running I would give my millions to open a new wing of a hospital for kids with cancer or ??? and let the media mention it and move on. As it says in the Bible "you will know them by their works" Look at their works, don't listen to their words.
    As for the last 7 years, look at the facts too, until the threat of the democrats taking over, our economy has been the best in years!!! The war, yes, bad move. We should have taken out Sadam and then pulled out immediatly.

    September 28, 2007 11:11 pm at 11:11 pm |
  14. Brad, NYC

    That is it? The story above notes that ol' Fred Thompson has raised $7M and he only got in after labor day!!! Hillary and Barack Hussein Obama were at it every day this quarter and is only up on him by 3x as much. This should be a blowout for them, but its not!

    September 28, 2007 11:53 pm at 11:53 pm |
  15. Nick, Basking Ridge, NJ

    Looks like Ron Paul will outraise McCain again...of course thats just my speculation.

    September 28, 2007 11:53 pm at 11:53 pm |
  16. Big Texas, Little Texas

    Although Freddie has only officially been in the race since Labor Day, he's been running for months now, come on. The way Republicans were hailing him as the "Second Coming of Reagan" & their "Messiah" I was picturing hordes of conservatives lining up to contribute to his campaign. Apparently not, huh? It was all PR hype! Typical Hollywood. Once he opened his mouth without a script people figured out that he was as dumb as a box of rocks and kept their wallets closed or gave elsewhere. I wouldn't be bragging about 7 million if I were him.

    September 29, 2007 02:05 am at 2:05 am |
  17. Lance in Monrovia CA

    Obama's donations come from 500,000 INDIVIDUAL donors, most in the 5 or 10 dollar range. Meanwhile the vast majority of Hillary Clinton's money is coming from PACS and Lobbys instead of individual donors. She won't even probably say how many indivuduals contribute or what lobbys. The way it works is that a company like Exxon will have all its major corp employees band together and give the max 2300 dollars each so all in they can contribute millions at a time, making Hillary beholden to the interest of Exxon (just using an example here) instead of the interests of the American people.

    Barack Obama has shunned federal lobbys because he recognizes the political corruption they foster.

    He far outdraws Hillary in terms of crowd count but the news constantly overlooks this. She had a rally with Bill in New York, her home turf, that had maybe 5000 people. Meanwhile 25,000 people showed up yesterday in New York for Obama's rally.

    You tell me... WHO is the real front runner that the mainstream media is trying to keep you from seeing because they know if they do that their days of vertical monopolies in every industry are over?

    His name is Barack Obama, and he's leading the people instead of the greed.

    Obama = change.

    Hillary and the Republicans = business as usual.

    September 29, 2007 08:35 am at 8:35 am |
  18. Matt, Buffalo NY

    Sounds like another attempt to buy votes at the public's expense. The more I learn, the scarrier she is getting. Maybe it's time for a third party.

    September 29, 2007 09:02 am at 9:02 am |
  19. shannon - NYC

    Obama and Clinton are too fluffy to fix the mess the US is in – it's not all sunshine and roses out there. They don't have the experience or the hutzpah to be in control.

    September 29, 2007 09:29 am at 9:29 am |
  20. Juanito, Washington, DC

    I'm pretty sure that if Hillary had pulled in 10,000 in Chicago, Obama's backyard, the media would have gone nuts and given it wall-to-wall coverage, and used to to tell us that she is the inevitable nominee. But Obama drew 25,000 in NEW YORK CITY two days ago, Hillary's backyard, and the corporate media did not give it any coverage.
    Truly amazing. Thankfully, the revolution will NOT be televised. I want to see the pundits spin Obama's continuous tremendous fundraising prowess,despite all the "experts" telling us his campaign is irrelevant.

    I attended Obama's DC rally on the Sept 18 in donwtown Washington, DC, and he packed in 5000 people (on a work day, no less) in jaded DC! I mean, I was struck at the number of people there who had come straight from their jobs, briefcases and all, to come see Obama.

    September 29, 2007 10:19 am at 10:19 am |
  21. Chip Celina OH


    I appreciate your fervor and research for/on Obama. I wish the media could lay out some details like you have in your post.

    I hope that throughout the remaining time the people will research Hillary for who she really is. As far as holding elective or appointed office at the state level or higher she is tied with Edwards as the LEAST experienced of the whole field. So much for that argument.

    Have a great weekend,

    September 29, 2007 10:35 am at 10:35 am |
  22. dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD.

    Daniel from New York:

    Sen. Obama's numbers would be a sign of stalling out, not momentum. First, if CNN's story is accurate, it indicates that Sen. Obama is outraising Sen. Clinton by far less (if any at all) than he had outraised her in previous quarters. Second, whether he outraises her or not, she's significantly outpolling him, which shows that he's been unable to translate his dollars into votes. Finally, Sen. Obama outraising Sen. Clinton is an old story: no one will pay much attention. Especially given that Sen. Clinton doesn't need to outraise Sen. Obama. She just needs enough money to run her campaign, which she appears to have.


    If the polls are accurate, Obama's ability to draw a crowd isn't going to translate into votes. People appear to be flocking to see him because he's a new face, a curiousity.
    Also: could you link to the story verifying the breakdown of his fundraising? I've heard a donor range in the 100,000-200,000 range, not 500,000. And it's difficult for me to understand how he could raise $32.5M with a majority of his donations in the $5-$10 range. Please enlighten.

    September 29, 2007 11:09 am at 11:09 am |
  23. Ken, Alexandria VA

    How can Obama keep up with Hillary financially but not according to the polls? Hmmm...something seems fishy. People will click on a survey way before they donate their hard earned cash. Smaller donations=more voters. Im a college student they never poll me. I wonder who these polls are polling. Could it be that the Clinton camp is paying to skew the polls? Will find out soon...

    September 29, 2007 11:21 am at 11:21 am |
  24. Lance in Monrovia CA


    I attended a rally with Obama in Santa Barbara a few weeks back. I had never been to a political rally in my life and had no idea what to expect. I showed up way too early to see only a few people waiting in line and I thought "what a bummer. We're the only ones here. Maybe I'm the only one that really feels as strongly as I do about Obama."

    But then I realized I'd gotten there like three hours early. I thought the rally was at nine and it was at noon.

    We got front row seats, about ten feet from Obama. By the time noon rolled around, there were NINE THOUSAND PEOPLE cheering behind me. I took more pictures of the crowd than Obama just because I was so asolutely stunned at the overwhelming support coming from the crowd. It was incredibly diverse as a group. There were teenagers, in fact an entire cheerleader squad a few feet from me. There were elderly people with canes and one dude with an oxygen tank. There were black people, white people, asian people, hispanic people. There were hippies and obviously well off republican types.

    People had come from every corner of California, no doubt. I was struck by the number of Obama shirts, homemade posters, and by the grins all around. It was like coming home as I realized I wasn't alone after all.

    The news that night reported 1000 people in attendance and they showed barely a brief glimpse of the crowd.

    What's up with that?

    September 29, 2007 11:26 am at 11:26 am |
  25. Robert, Cleveland, OH

    "$850,000 of Illegal money" – why illegal? They guy who arranged for it was caught on unrelated fraud charges and Clinton company returned all the money even though nobody else has done it before, just to keep a company clean. And laughable story about Obama and Edwards "honesty" because the don't take money from the federal lobbiest – but take from their clients and take from state lobbiest. Anybody see a difference? Anybody feel that low level posts Obama held (yea, right, was he member of a village council or treaurer of the class in a high school) make him experienced enough for a US presidency especially after the last 7 years? Judged by some postings here -yes...

    September 29, 2007 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm |
1 2