June 30th, 2007
09:09 AM ET
12 years ago

'08 hopefuls dash for cash

WASHINGTON (CNN) - In presidential politics, money can create the perception of momentum, which is why the herd of 2008 White House hopefuls will be trying to stuff as much cash as they can in their coffers by midnight Saturday to show off their fund-raising prowess ahead of an upcoming federal report.

The Federal Election Commission requires presidential candidates to report their contributions and expenditures quarterly, and Saturday is the end of the second quarter. And although they have until July 15 to actually file their report with the FEC, many campaigns - especially those that did well - are likely to release the figures sooner.

In fact, several campaigns were providing estimates of their second quarter fund-raising even before the reporting period closed.

A spokesman for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he has raised at least $7 million from April through June, which would be about $800,000 more than he raised in the first quarter. Richardson's overall total will top $13 million, which would put him near the top of the second-tier of Democratic candidates.

Of course, he would still be far behind the front-runners, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who each raised more than $25 million in the first quarter.

Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Clinton, indicated Thursday that the former first lady would raise "in the range of $27 million" in the second quarter, which would put her total take for the year north of $53 million. But,trying to tamp down expectations, he said the Clinton campaign expects to be outraised by Obama.

Obama's campaign, which raised $25 million in the first quarter, has set a goal of getting donations from 350,000 people during the second quarter, although it did not attach a dollar total. To beat Clinton's estimate, each of those donors would to give an average of about $78.

Another Democratic hopeful, former Sen. John Edwards, e-mailed supporters Friday morning, telling them that his campaign was within "striking distance" of raising $9 million for the quarter. The campaign later put up a running total on its Web site, saying that $8.7 million had been raised and asking supporters to help top the $9 million mark.

However, even at $9 million, Edwards' fund-raising total for the last three months would be sharply lower than it was during the first quarter, when he raised more than $14 million.

During the second quarter, former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson began raising money to test the presidential waters. However, because he is not a declared candidate and his fund-raising committee was incorporated in his home state of Tennessee, rather than at the federal level, he will not be required to report.

The campaign of another GOP candidate, Sen. John McCain, said it had reached its goal of raising $3 million online during the quarter, although it did not detail any numbers for its non-Internet fund-raising.

McCain shook up his fund-raising operation in April, after his take in the first quarter - $13 million - put him behind both former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

soundoff (15 Responses)
  1. Gerald Williams, PhD, Harrisburg PA

    Please get your facts straight!!
    Hillary raised only 19.1 million for Q1 for the Primary. Barack raised over 25 million with another 1 million for the general election.
    Barack had 104,000 different donors for Q1 and (from Web Site) has a yearly total of 256,000 different donors or more than 150,000 different donors for Q2. Although much of the $ comes from high priced "diners", Barack will again set a new record for total and online donations.
    The significance is that Barack has shown that he is will do the best at raising money and exciting the Democrats after the Primaries.
    Also the media should begin to consider the situation where Al Gore endorses Barack and tells his supportors to turn to Obama.
    Finally the media should recognize that Bloomberg and Nader may only run if the "inside" candidate, Hillary, wins, but not if Obama wins.

    June 30, 2007 11:08 am at 11:08 am |
  2. Larry Tierney Dunedin, FL

    The nicest comment I have on former Sen. Fred Thompson, who you may recall was known as being lazy while in the Senate, is I will not have to see the B actor who plays the DA on Law & Order. Adam Schiff is still rolling his eyes.

    June 30, 2007 11:47 am at 11:47 am |
  3. Kevin, Orlando, FL

    Obama is truly the man of the people. He has the strongest supporters.

    Obama makes people want to hope again.

    Grassroots over being in bed with lobbyists.

    June 30, 2007 01:50 pm at 1:50 pm |
  4. Questionmark

    What experience does Sen. Obama have? He has only been a senator for 3+ years, and was in a state house before that. Where is his foreign policy experience?

    I understand that he is currently a star, and as such attracts many people, and indeed is an attractive candidate. However, this does not qualify anyone to be President. We need someone who has the experience necessary to hit the ground running, and not to do on the job training.

    June 30, 2007 03:54 pm at 3:54 pm |
  5. Kevin, Orlando, FL

    True. Lincoln and Kennedy were horrible presidents too. If history has taught us anything...

    June 30, 2007 05:16 pm at 5:16 pm |
  6. Mahmood (Michael) Sabri Johnson City, TN

    Those who don't have a message need cash. Those who have a message, they don't. Dr. Ron Paul does not need huge amount of cash because his message is reaching far and wide without it. The candidates with cash are in for a surprise!

    July 1, 2007 01:07 am at 1:07 am |
  7. Will.

    Lincoln WAS a horrible Pres., the Civil war was completely unnecessary and illegal.

    July 1, 2007 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  8. amie, phoenix, az

    Everyone needs to take a closer look at Kucinich – He is the best candidate EXACTLY because he isn't raising MILLIONS – he isn't sucking up to special interests and big business who he'll have to protect later on. He is one of the few politicians of integrity, principles and with an enormous heart. He's been homeless as a child and knows what it means to struggle in the middle class. He is a man of peace and love, exactly what we need to clean up after the man of hate and war. Kucinich – NO STRINGS ATTACHED!

    July 1, 2007 12:10 pm at 12:10 pm |
  9. Paul, Olive Branch, Mississippi

    For Will...I am so sick and tired of people making excuses for the terrorist secessionists. They are the ones who attacked American soldiers, who threw the rules of decency out the window, who tried to destroy our nation. The Confederates were traitors. As a veteran, I am so embarrassed when I see my state's flag stained with the confederate battle flag. If you saw Al Qaeda icons as part of your state's banner, wouldn't you be enraged? Lincoln decided our country was worth saving, and he deserves the honors we bestow.

    July 1, 2007 01:13 pm at 1:13 pm |
  10. charles enoch

    someone said Barack isn't a qualified and doesn't have experience...what do we have now...i would take him over the current president anytime

    July 1, 2007 01:39 pm at 1:39 pm |
  11. Kirsten, Fredericksburg, Virginia

    Paul, in fact it was Lincoln's fault that the Civil War happened. The Constitution gave the states the right to secede if they felt the government was not working in their best interests. Also, Lincoln provoked the attack on Fort Sumter by sending three warships along with a supply ship, instead of withdrawing his troops peacefully. None of the three ships made it to the harbor as they either were sunk by a storm, never left its original harbor, or decided to wait for the other two ships to show up before proceeding. The history books do not tell us this as they have been modified, because of fears of racism, and checks of legality. Lincoln himself said that he didn't care whether or not slavery existed as long as the Union was preserved. So, in conclusion, Lincoln actually wasn't that great of a president, the history books have been modified for you to think the opposite.

    July 1, 2007 02:11 pm at 2:11 pm |
  12. Paul, Olive Branch, Mississippi

    The apologists for secession usually insist there is some cabalistic plot that has magically changed "the history books." Whatever your motivation for believing that all history books have been changed for fear of racist accusations (!), the facts are not on your side.

    First, the US certainly has the right to protect it's own possessions, including forts. General Winfield Scott, trying to resupply Fort Sumter, actually sent a merchant marine ship at the last minute instead of a warship to avoid provoking an attack. The ship was attacked anyway by South Carolina forces. This was during Buchanan's administration, not Lincoln's. When Lincoln took office three months later, he decided to try again to resupply the fort, and even promised the governor of South Carolina that only provisions would be sent, not war material. He did send warships to accompany the merchant vessels...the previous attempt showed that they were in danger of attack. Before the fleet could arrive, Davis and his war secretary ordered the attack on the fort. Davis' own Secretary of State opposed the planned attack, saying, "It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."

    Secondly, there is nothing...nothing...in the constitution to allow for secession. In fact, it is not even addressed. The constitution gives instructions for a state to join the union, yet none to get out. The implication is, and this was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Texas v White (1868), that the "more perfect union" called for in the preamble (which was a direct reference to the weak union under the failed Articles of Confederation), requires that the union be "dissoluable."

    Finally, Lincoln preserved our country, the only one of which you and I have ever been a part. That he and his generals successfully prosecuted a war does not put the tragedy on his shoulders. That fault lies with those that broke up this country, not with who put it back together.

    July 1, 2007 09:10 pm at 9:10 pm |
  13. GregFrankfurtGermany

    Why is it a blog about 2008 pres. elections and raising money sidetracks into the civil war? Quit crying over the past people or debating who was the worst/best- I hope we all study who we vote for, examine and hold our president accountable in the future, for what our country does and doesn't do. (includes every elected official actually) And what does Fred Thompson do with the money he raised anyway?
    Aw-right, back to work...

    July 2, 2007 07:08 am at 7:08 am |
  14. Jim Columbia, South Carolina

    You keep forgetting about Sam Brwonback, the Republican with the best grass roots volunteers and who will again beat all the other GOP contenders except the top three in this quarters fundraising report. Watch him surge in Iowa and South Carolina!

    July 2, 2007 07:29 pm at 7:29 pm |
  15. Paul, Olive Branch, Mississippi

    I agree, GregFrankfurt, and should not have been drawn into the off-topic conversation. I certainly hope my comments didn't come off as worst v. best haggling. In my defense, however, the two comments I responded to are indicative of a way, way, way far right element in this country that has lied to a lot of younger people about history and government in order to influence the future of our country. Okay...I'll stop.

    July 2, 2007 08:15 pm at 8:15 pm |