Political snapshots from unbiased sources
Top 20 PAC Contributors to Federal Candidates, 2007-2008*
DEMS | REPUBS | ALL
|
Totals include subsidiaries and affiliated PACs, if any.
*For ease of identification, the names used in this section are those of the organization connected with the PAC, rather than the official PAC name. For example, the “Coca-Cola Company Nonpartisan Committee for Good Government” is simply listed as “Coca-Cola Co.”
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, October 29, 2007.
From Opensecrets.org:
Shopping in (Partisan) Style
Capital Eye’s holiday guide to buying blue or red.
December 13, 2007 | If you’re looking for that perfect gift for your loved one this holiday season…we at Capital Eye can’t help you out. But if you’re looking for a gift from a retailer that shares your political ideology, then look no further.Retailers, just like many other industries, actively make campaign contributions, revealing a bit about the company’s political leanings—or at least those of the employees who give at least $200 of their hard-earned money to political campaigns. Until this year, retailers overall had given more money to Republicans, who tend to be more in line with the pro-business and anti-union policies that retailers support. In the 2006 election cycle, employees and PACs in the industry gave $13.2 million to federal candidates, parties and PACs, 58 percent of which went to Republicans, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. In the first nine months of this year, however, Democrats received 52 percent of the $6.9 million from the industry.
The presidential candidates have received $2.1 million of that total, with Democrats collecting 64 percent of retailers’ donations. Hillary Clinton collected the most of any candidate at $631,800, while Republican Rudy Giuliani led his party with $270,800 in receipts.
The biggest contributor in the retail industry is also the world’s biggest retailer, Wal-Mart. Employees of the big-box retailer, which stayed out of politics until it started getting criticism for its treatment of its employees, has given $727,830 so far this year, 60 percent of which went to Republicans. Behind Wal-Mart are Home Depot and Target, both of which also support the GOP financially.
The employees and political action committee of Gap clothing store have supported Democrats both cycles, by contrast, which didn’t surprise Gap shopper Maura Halpern. “I’d associate them with corporate social responsibility. They try to reach out to the community,” Halpern, a graduate student, said as she shopped at a Gap in Arlington, Va., for winter scarves and gear this week. She added that the political leaning of a retailer would definitely play a role in her decision to shop there. “I’m a Democrat, and I would want to align myself with a store that shares my beliefs,” she said.
Another Gap shopper, however, predicted that the chain’s employees supported Republicans because its “prices are kind of high” but said political leaning didn’t matter much to her. “Does anyone ever think if retailers lean left or right?” asked Maryland resident and police officer Deborah Tyler, who was shopping this week for her 8-year-old daughter at GapKids. “I’m just in a crunch and I need a holiday outfit quick.”
The retail industry also spends money on shaping policy in another way—through lobbying the federal government. So far this year, retailers have spent $9.5 million to lobby on Capitol Hill, pushing for tax cuts that induce consumer spending and opposing tightened port security that would limit imports. Much of the industry also supports bankruptcy reform that makes it harder for consumers who have declared bankruptcy to escape entirely from their debt. The National Retail Federation this year pushed for tax relief for small businesses in conjunction with raising the minimum wage to $7.25. Retailers were also concerned about provisions of this year’s immigration bill, including what they said was a burdensome requirement that businesses verify their employees’ citizenship through a complex electronic system.
For some holiday shoppers, a retailer’s political leaning is less important than its stance on certain issues, said Rob Eelkema, a resident of Alexandria, Va., and software salesman who was shopping this week for gifts from Macy’s for his wife and kids. Eelkema said he wasn’t surprised that employees at Macy’s, which he called “Big Business,” gave Republicans 61 percent of their $32,700 in contributions. As someone who’s not a party-line voter, Eelkema said he’d be more interested in whether a company was environmentally friendly. But ultimately, he said, he wouldn’t take the time to check the company’s stance on issues. “You don’t go and look up Macy’s and see what they support. I just want to make it easy to go shopping,” he said.
However, if you’d like to buy blue or red this holiday season, use the following information about popular retailers from the Center for Responsive Politics as your guide:
Barnes and Noble
2006 total contributions: $156,180 (84 percent to Democrats)
2008 total contributions: $55,067 (100 percent to Democrats)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Democrat John Edwards
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $20,000
Bed Bath & Beyond
2006 total contributions: $100,800 (91 percent to Democrats)
2008 total contributions: $33,200 (87 percent to Democrats)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Republican Rudy Giuliani
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $0
Best Buy
2006 total contributions: $134,300 (87 percent to Republicans)
2008 total contributions: $31,175 (64 percent to Republicans)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Republican Rudy Giuliani
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $235,000
Borders
2006 total contributions: $9,600 (54 percent to Democrats)
2008 total contributions: $1,350 (100 percent to Democrats)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: None
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $0
Circuit City Stores
2006 total contributions: $4,300 (72 percent to Republicans)
2008 total contributions: $2,750 (100 percent to Democrats)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Democrat Barack Obama
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $0
CompUSA
2006 total contributions: $3,000 (67 percent to Democrats)
2008 total contributions: $300 (100 percent to Republicans)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: None
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $0
Costco Wholesale
2006 total contributions: $166,150 (87 percent to Democrats)
2008 total contributions: $77,190 (98 percent to Democrats)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Democrat Barack Obama
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $0
Gap
2006 total contributions: $250,900 (76 percent to Democrats)
2008 total contributions: $68,550 (72 percent to Democrats)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Democrat Hillary Clinton
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $100,000
Hallmark Cards
2006 total contributions: $230,170 (78 percent to Republicans)
2008 total contributions: $66,350 (66 percent to Republicans)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Democrat Hillary Clinton
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $200,000
Home Depot
2006 total contributions: $1,119,360 (77 percent to Republicans)
2008 total contributions: $510,050 (57 percent to Republicans)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Democrat Barack Obama
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $570,000
Limited Brands
2006 total contributions: $408,200 (76 percent to Republicans)
2008 total contributions: $228,100 (80 percent to Republicans)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Democrat Hillary Clinton
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $360,000
Linens N Things
2006 total contributions: N/A
2008 total contributions: $2,500 (92 percent to Republicans)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Republican Rudy Giuliani
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $0
Lowe’s
2006 total contributions: $18,150 (79 percent to Republicans)
2008 total contributions: $23,150 (71 percent to Republicans)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Democrat Hillary Clinton
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $20,000
Macy’s
2006 total contributions: $130,200 (66 percent to Republicans)
2008 total contributions: $32,700 (61 percent to Republicans)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Republican Mitt Romney
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $40,000
OfficeMax
2006 total contributions: $5,550 (77 percent to Republicans)
2008 total contributions: $2,725 (91 percent to Republicans)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain (tie)
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $45,000
Sears Holdings Corp (parent of K-Mart)
2006 total contributions: $450,550 (66 percent to Republicans)
2008 total contributions: $89,450 (52 percent to Democrats)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Republican Mitt Romney
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $140,746
Target
2006 total contributions: $663,140 (73 percent to Republicans)
2008 total contributions: $277,400 (72 percent to Republicans)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Republican Rudy Giuliani
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $100,000
Toys R Us
2006 total contributions: $2,100 (72 percent to Republicans)
2008 total contributions: $250 (100 percent to Democrats)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Democrat Barack Obama
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $0
Wal-Mart
2006 total contributions: $1,781,800 (71 percent to Republicans)
2008 total contributions: $727,830 (60 percent to Republicans)
No. 1 recipient among presidential candidates: Democrat Hillary Clinton
2007 total lobbying expenditures: $685,000
From Opensecrets.org
Lobbyists do represent ordinary Americans, as Hillary Clinton claims, but those contributing to her campaign mostly represent big industries, the Center for Responsive Politics finds. Obama and Edwards eschew lobbyists’ money, but their biggest contributors still lobby in Washington.By Lindsay Renick Mayer
November 29, 2007 | As John Edwards and Barack Obama continue to assail Hillary Clinton for accepting campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists, she has tried to dispel their accusation that being the top recipient of K Street’s money puts her in the pocket of entrenched corporate interests.Among Clinton’s defenses is that lobbyists also work in the interest of ordinary people. “A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They represent nurses, they represent social workers—yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people,” Clinton said at a Democratic candidates forum in August. That’s when Edwards and Obama, who refuse contributions from federal lobbyists, first strongly called on their front-running rival to do the same.
According to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, however, Clinton’s assertion doesn’t quite hit the mark. While some lobbyists certainly do represent “real” people and large corporations, those who are contributing to the 2008 presidential candidates—including the senator from New York—aren’t on Capitol Hill to talk about the issues of nurses or social workers, or firefighters or cops. By matching lobbyists who have donated to the presidential candidates this year with their clients, the Center found that these individuals are instead largely advocating for big industries such as pharmaceutical, automotive and computer companies.
Bryan Jones, director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of Washington, said Clinton’s claim that lobbyists represent the everyman is misleading at best. “It’s not honest at all,” he said.
“The first thing I’d want to know is how much is from lobbyists representing traditional industry groups and how much comes from [those representing] unions,” Jones said.
In total, 353 federally registered lobbyists (including those working at lobbying firms or in-house for corporations, unions and associations) contributed at least $787,300 to Clinton’s presidential campaign in the first nine months of this year, more than they gave to any other candidate, in either party. Lobbyists who represent health professionals, including the nurses Clinton singled out, account for $82,805 in contributions to her, while those representing the pharmaceutical industry paid out $562,900.
Only 14 lobbyists who gave to Clinton reported representing health professionals, compared to 76 who represented the pharmaceutical industry. Nine lobbyists who gave to the New York senator represent clients from both groups. Of contributions listed on campaign finance reports, Clinton has not received a single donation from lobbyists working for the two largest trade groups representing the working-class Americans she cited in August, the American Nurses Association and the National Association of Social Workers.
Lobbyist-contributors bill big
Clinton’s lobbyist-contributors represent a $225 million slice of the Washington influence industry, for that is how much they billed their clients, either individually or as members of lobbying teams, during the first half of 2007, according to the most recent disclosure reports available. Clinton contributors who lobby for pharmaceutical companies and interests billed more than any other industry, $30.7 million, or 14 percent of the total. They represent such drugmakers as Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb and the influential trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).
Clinton contributors who represent assorted manufacturing and distributing interests, such as the American Iron & Steel Institute, logged 6 percent of the total billings for her lobbyist-contributors, as did lobbyists representing the computer and Internet industry. Advocates for doctors, nurses and other health professionals billed $2.1 million, or just 1 percent of the total paid out to Clinton’s donors and their colleagues from January through June.
Clinton’s point is not entirely lost, however, said Matt Grossmann, a political scientist at Michigan State University who researches interest groups and lobbying. Even if the lobbyists giving to her represent more corporate interests, “it doesn’t necessarily invalidate her point that deciding to exclude contributions from all lobbyists would exclude some people who argue on behalf of constituencies she supports,” he said. Clinton’s campaign did not return phone calls before this was posted.
For Edwards and Obama, however, pointing out that Clinton accepts contributions from lobbyists while they have vowed not to is “an opening they can use to differentiate themselves,” Grossmann said. “It fits within the story they’re trying to tell of a Washington insider versus someone who will bring change.”
Compared to other types of campaign contributors, lobbyists aren’t among the most generous. In the first nine months of this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, employees of lobbying firms contributed a total of $2.1 million to the presidential candidates, 64 percent of which went to Democrats. By comparison, lawyers gave nearly $39 million, employees at securities and investment companies gave nearly $24 million and retired individuals have given $25.1 million.
But while lobbyists may not be the biggest givers, their contributions are scrutinized more carefully. Lobbyists are hired by their clients explicitly to influence legislation and policy through direct contact with members of Congress and other government officials. And campaign contributions often facilitate that contact.
“[Contributions from lobbyists] suggest to people that access is part of the game,” Jones from the University of Washington said. “Giving money to politicians this way suggests they will be an easy ear. Even if you can’t buy politicians, they’re certainly going to listen.”
Edwards and Obama have said they will not accept contributions from K Street for this very reason—lobbyists’ money is often intended to persuade politicians to support a private interest rather than the public’s. Obama has argued that the money that insurance and drug companies spent on lobbying helped defeat Clinton’s health care proposal in the early ’90’s. “You can’t tell me that that money didn’t have a difference,” he said to Clinton in August. “They aren’t spending all that just because they are contributing to the public interest. They have an agenda.”
Interests that lobby bankroll Obama and Edwards, too
Not everyone believes that a contribution from a lobbyist is any different from a contribution from someone else. Ed Rothschild, a Washington lobbyist, tried to contribute $500 to John Edwards without success. “It’s the companies that hire the lobbyists that seek to influence government policy. The lobbyists are just like accountants or lawyers or whoever else is hired for a certain job,” Rothschild said. “At the end of the day, the people that help support your campaign are interested in influencing public policy whoever they are, wherever they come from.”
Rothschild, whose lobbying clients this year have included Wal-Mart, Google and Sunoco, said that his primary job at the Podesta Group is in public affairs, a type of public relations that doesn’t always qualify as lobbying. He noted that the term “registered lobbyist” doesn’t differentiate between someone who works for a single client a couple of hours per month or lots of clients full time. Although his donation to Edwards was returned to him, Rothschild said the candidate still has his support.
Vowing not to accept contributions from lobbyists isn’t a foolproof plan for Edwards or Obama. Both still accept money from state and local lobbyists, employees at law firms that offer lobbying services, family members of lobbyists and former lobbyists. Contributions from Washington lobbyists have still managed to seep into both Democrats’ coffers.
At the end of the 3rd Quarter, the Edwards campaign listed $4,500 in contributions from seven registered lobbyists, according to Federal Election Commission reports. The campaign returned one of these contributions in early November, a spokeswoman said, and the refund will be reflected in year-end filings. When Capital Eye alerted the campaign to the other donations that would appear to violate Edwards’s policy, the representative said the campaign had missed those contributions and would return them promptly.
The Obama campaign had collected nearly $34,500 from 29 registered lobbyists by the end of the campaign’s first nine months of fundraising, according to FEC reports. The Obama campaign did not respond to several requests to review those records.
Obama and Edwards also refuse money from political action committees controlled by corporations and other interests, but they and every other presidential candidate accept money from employees of corporations and other interests that employ lobbyists. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 14 of Obama’s top 20 contributors employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $16.2 million to influence the federal government in the first six months of 2007. Of Edwards’s top 20 contributors, only seven have employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $6.3 million. But the plaintiff attorneys who dominate the list of Edwards’s top donors are well represented in Washington by the influential American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America), which has spent at least $3 million on lobbying this year alone. As for Clinton, all but four of her top 20 contributors have employed lobbyists this year.
Republicans haven’t made lobbyists’ money an issue
In total, registered lobbyists who have made campaign contributions to any 2008 presidential candidate billed nearly $563 million to their clients in the first half of 2007. Lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical industry billed the most at nearly 10 percent, and those representing business associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, billed 5.5 percent. The drug-manufacturing industry also happens to be the top spender among all industries on federal lobbying, and the Chamber of Commerce is the top spender by organization.
While the Democratic presidential candidates have been arguing over who is more aligned with Washington lobbyists and corporate interests, the Republican candidates haven’t had a similar debate within their party. Republicans running for president have received $753,200 in campaign contributions from lobbyists—Clinton alone has raised more—and those lobbyists have billed their clients at least $335.3 million this year. Of that total, lobbyists representing business associations billed the most at 8.4 percent, and lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical industry billed 7.1 percent.
The top three Republican fundraisers—Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain—received money from lobbyists representing those same two industries, in addition to insurance companies, public sector unions and the entertainment industry. Among Republicans, McCain has received the most from lobbyists at $300,000.
-CRP Research Director Jihan Andoni and Researchers Greg Gasiewski and Adam Crowther contributed to this report.
At Opensecrets.org, there’s a great interactive map detailing top fundraisers in every state. In my state, Rudolph Giuliani has raised the most money. Fascinating.
From OpenSecrets.org:
Biggest Donors Are Digging Deeper for ‘08
__________________
Top industries and interest groups have increased their giving over 2004 by 46 percent, Center finds. As money shifts to Democrats, giving from Republican strongholds is mostly flat.
____________________
WASHINGTON—The industries and interest groups that contribute the most money toward federal elections have substantially increased their giving since the 2004 election, according to an exclusive analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
On average, top-giving industries and interests have increased their total contributions to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to national party committees, by 46 percent since the same point in time four years ago. Compared with the first three quarters of the 2006 cycle, when there was no election for president, contributions from the top 50 most active industries are up 54 percent.
“A power shift in Congress and a wide-open race for the White House add up to record-breaking contributions from the nation’s biggest givers,” said Sheila Krumholz, the Center’s executive director. “There is an intensity to the fundraising for 2008 that we’ve never seen before, which means the candidates and parties will be all the more beholden to their biggest donors.”
As interest groups and industries contribute substantially more money, they are also shifting their giving to Democrats, both to members of Congress now that the party is in control and to Democratic presidential candidates. The typical big-giving industry is now giving 57 percent of its contributions to Democrats, a shift of 14 percentage points from both 2006 and 2004, when the party and its candidates collected only 43 percent of the money.
Looking at specific industries and their contributions toward the 2008 election, individuals and PACs associated with the securities and investment industry, which includes hedge funds and private-equity firms, have increased their giving 91 percent since 2004. Lawyers and law firms—the top industry based on total contributions of $76.4 million—are up 52 percent. The real estate industry has increased contributions 51 percent, and the entertainment industry has boosted its giving 68 percent. Health professionals and the insurance industry have both increased their giving 23 percent.
The Center examined the 50 industries and interest groups that have contributed the most money toward the 2008 federal elections. Researchers analyzed more than $581 million in individual and political action committee contributions that flowed from those industries and interests in January 2007 through September, and made comparisons to the same periods in 2003 and 2005. (CRP is the only organization that attempts to classify all individual donors to federal politics by industry.) The analysis includes only contributions itemized with the Federal Election Commission, or those exceeding $200.
The sharpest increases since 2004 tend to be in the ideological sector. Democratic/liberal interests have increased their giving 396 percent since 2004, fueled particularly by Internet fundraising organizations such as ActBlue. Candidates have been donating money to each other at a greater rate, too. Contributions from candidate committees are up 164 percent compared with four years ago, and contributions from leadership PACs—political action committees formed by politicians to support other candidates—are up 88 percent over the ‘04 cycle.
The industries with the smallest increases, and even decreases in several cases, tend to have Republican-leaning track records. The automotive industry, which has contributed 75 percent of its money to the GOP since the 1990 cycle, has decreased its contributions by 20 percent since 2004. Food processing and sales, which includes grocery stores and manufacturers of food, is down 10 percent. Contributions from telephone utilities are down 4 percent over ‘04. Single-digit increases have registered among general contractors, defense aerospace and building materials and equipment—all industries that have leaned Republican for years. And the oil and gas industry has increased contributions just 15 percent over the ‘04 cycle, well below the average for big industries.
“Democratic donors seem unusually mobilized for this election,” Krumholz said, “but those industries who’ve traditionally given to Republicans seem to be either nursing their wounds from ‘06 or sitting this election out. That’s a challenge for Republicans—how to mobilize their fundraising base to compete with the momentum on the other side.”
The following chart shows the industries and interest groups that have increased their contributions by the greatest percentage compared to the 2004 cycle. The chart shows how each industry’s 2008-cycle contributions from individuals and PACs are split between Democrats and Republicans.
Largest Increases in Contributions from Top-Giving Industries & Interest Groups, 2008 cycle vs. 2004
|
Industry or Interest Group |
08 Total |
Increase vs. 04 |
08 Dem % |
08 Repub % |
(Analysis includes contributions greater than $200 to federal candidates and parties from individuals working in the industry and from associated PACs, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Contributions were generally made during the first nine months of 2007 and 2003.)
# # #
The Center’s website, OpenSecrets.org, tallies contributions from top industries and interest groups in the site’s 2008 Election Overview: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/industries.asp?cycle=2008.
About the Center for Responsive Politics
The Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Founded in 1983, the nonpartisan, nonprofit Center aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more responsive government. CRP’s award-winning Web site, OpenSecrets.org, is the most comprehensive resource for campaign contributions, lobbying data and analysis available anywhere. CRP relies on support from a combination of foundation grants and individual contributions. The Center accepts no contributions from businesses, labor unions or trade associations.
From Open Secret:
| $200-499 | $500-999 | $1000-2300 | $2300+ | $4600+ | ||||||
| # Donors | Total | # Donors | Total | # Donors | Total | # Donors | Total | # Donors | Total | |
| Female | 3692 | $940,462 | 2425 | $1,292,483 | 4330 | $5,390,341 | 5419 | $18,271,950 | 2173 | $10,166,250 |
| Male | 2261 | $587,017 | 2210 | $1,174,578 | 4913 | $6,207,365 | 7097 | $24,731,626 | 3140 | $14,838,838 |
| $200-499 | $500-999 | $1000-2300 | $2300+ | $4600+ | ||||||
| # Donors | Total | # Donors | Total | # Donors | Total | # Donors | Total | # Donors | Total | |
| Female | 5466 | $1,407,243 | 3754 | $2,005,453 | 4470 | $5,580,109 | 5097 | $13,712,069 | 608 | $3,057,609 |
| Male | 5568 | $1,440,949 | 4092 | $2,182,696 | 6204 | $7,681,275 | 7049 | $19,154,481 | 901 | $4,608,013 |
Totals include contributions from individuals whose gender could be determined by the Center, as released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on 10/29/07.
This information is from Opensecrets.org
 |
New York |
$18,412,337 |
26% |
|
 |
California |
$13,660,529 |
19% |
|
 |
Florida |
$4,798,570 |
7% |
|
 |
District of Columbia |
$3,631,482 |
5% |
|
 |
Other States |
$30,141,614 |
43% |
Top Metro Areas:
|
NEW YORK |
$14,328,825 |
|
WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA-WV |
$7,885,580 |
|
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH |
$6,509,316 |
|
CHICAGO |
$2,762,198 |
|
SAN FRANCISCO |
$2,692,851 |
Top Zip Codes:
|
10021 (New York, NY) |
$1,575,956 |
|
10022 (New York, NY) |
$1,072,251 |
|
10128 (New York, NY) |
$755,940 |
|
10023 (New York, NY) |
$725,086 |
|
20016 (Washington, DC) |
$689,935 |
|
10024 (New York, NY) |
$686,195 |
|
10028 (New York, NY) |
$659,538 |
|
20007 (Washington, DC) |
$620,515 |
|
90210 (Beverly Hills, CA) |
$588,290 |
|
10019 (New York, NY) |
$543,124 |
From Capital Eye. Please visit their site for a complete analysis of summer fundraising activities by the Presidential Candidates.
Settling Debts (10/16/07, 1 pm)
The summer months afforded the Democratic candidates a chance to lessen their total debt by about $383,000. The season, however, wasn’t as good to Republicans. GOP candidates increased their total debt by $9.6 million, $8.4 million of which was accrued by Mitt Romney when he lent himself the money. The wealthy former Massachusetts governor is now in the hole (to himself) a total of $17.4 million—more than any other candidate from either party. Although Democrat Hillary Clinton decreased her total debt by $679,000 to $2.3 million, she still has more debt than any other candidate in her party. Republican John McCain also brought his total debt down during the 3rd Quarter by about $52,400 to $1.7 million, and Democrat John Edwards paid off his $333,600 debt entirely. Democrats Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich and Republicans Sam Brownback and Ron Paul entered the summer without any debt and finished it that way, too. Overall, Republicans have acquired $20.3 million in debt over the year, five times more than Democrats. About $691,000 of that total comes from two new Republican players, Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes.
Debt Be Gone: As more money comes in, some candidates square away old debt, while others accrue more.
| Candidate Name | Debt After Q2 | Debt After Q3 | Change in Debt |
| Mitt Romney |
$8,945,028 |
$17,350,000 |
$8,404,972 |
| Barack Obama |
$922,848 |
$1,409,740 |
$486,892 |
| Tom Tancredo |
$15,000 |
$295,603 |
$280,603 |
| Rudy Giuliani |
$0 |
$169,256 |
$169,256 |
| Joe Biden |
$0 |
$128,210 |
$128,210 |
| Duncan Hunter |
$0 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
| Mike Huckabee |
$31,045 |
$47,810 |
$16,765 |
| Bill Richardson |
$61,104 |
$75,222 |
$14,118 |
| John McCain |
$1,783,523 |
$1,730,691 |
($52,832) |
| John Edwards |
$333,586 |
$0 |
($333,586) |
| Hillary Clinton |
$3,026,522 |
$2,347,486 |
($679,036) |
| Chris Dodd |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
| Dennis Kucinich |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
| Mike Gravel |
$64,716 |
$64,716 |
$0 |
| Sam Brownback |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
| Ron Paul |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
| Fred Thompson |
N/A |
$678,432 |
N/A |
| Alan Keyes |
N/A |
$12,876 |
N/A |
The Time for Saving is Through (10/16/07, 12:45 pm)
With the primaries just months away and expensive advertising a campaign necessity, some candidates are spending more than they’re bringing in. During the 1st Quarter, when the candidates only had what they received to spend, only Democrat Mike Gravel spent up to the amount of his receipts. In the 2nd Quarter, six candidates spent beyond what they’d raised. Most recently, 10 candidates have spent more than their total 3rd Quarter contributions, generally drawing on the money they raised earlier in the year. In total, both parties spent about exactly what they received in the summer months, though Democrats have raised more this year and have more to spend. Democrat Chris Dodd spent nearly three times more during the summer months than he brought in, while Republican Sam Brownback led his party by spending about 1.5 times his receipts. Among the six largest fundraisers from both parties, only Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain spent less between July and September than they brought in.
Rate of Spending: The candidates are spending more of their summer receipts than what they brought in during the quarter.
| Candidate Name | 3rd Quarter Raised | 3rd Quarter Spent | 3rd Quarter Percent Spent |
| Chris Dodd |
$1,522,061 |
$4,025,458 |
264% |
| Tom Tancredo |
$767,152 |
$1,209,583 |
158% |
| Joe Biden |
$1,757,394 |
$2,635,896 |
150% |
| Sam Brownback |
$925,745 |
$1,278,856 |
138% |
| Bill Richardson |
$5,358,585 |
$6,666,681 |
124% |
| Mitt Romney |
$18,396,719 |
$21,301,756 |
116% |
| John Edwards |
$7,157,233 |
$8,271,938 |
116% |
| Duncan Hunter |
$536,357 |
$618,117 |
115% |
| Rudy Giuliani |
$11,624,255 |
$13,300,650 |
114% |
| Barack Obama |
$21,343,292 |
$21,519,790 |
101% |
| John McCain |
$5,734,478 |
$5,470,277 |
95% |
| Dennis Kucinich |
$1,011,696 |
$888,774 |
88% |
| Hillary Clinton |
$27,859,861 |
$22,623,680 |
81% |
| Mike Huckabee |
$1,034,486 |
$819,376 |
79% |
| Mike Gravel |
$130,510 |
$99,866 |
77% |
| Alan Keyes |
$21,218 |
$10,139 |
48% |
| Fred Thompson |
$12,828,111 |
$5,706,367 |
44% |
| Ron Paul |
$5,258,456 |
$2,169,644 |
41% |
Today, from opensecrets.org, campaign finance info for John Edwards.
P R E S I D E N T I A L C A N D I D A T E
John Edwards (D)
Former Senator; 2004 Presidential Candidate
Edwards is maintaining a steady fundraising pace behind Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, though he brought in a mere third of their totals in the second quarter. According to the former senator’s campaign, Edwards will need to raise at least $35 million by the end of 2007 to compete in the early primaries. Edwards has vowed not to accept money from registered lobbyists or PACs and only has minimal debt to re-pay after his 2004 campaign.
Total Receipts: $30,329,152
Total Spent: $17,932,103
Cash on Hand: $12,397,048
Debts: $0
Date of last report: September 30, 2007
Totals may include compliance fund receipts
Source of Funds:
(How to read this chart / methodology)
|
Individual contributions |
$30,121,494 |
99% |
|
|
PAC contributions |
$20 |
0% |
|
|
Candidate self-financing |
$0 |
0% |
|
|
Federal Funds |
$0 |
0% |
|
|
Other |
$207,638 |
1% |
PAC Contribution Breakdown:
(How to read this chart / methodology)
|
Business |
$0 |
0% |
|
|
Labor |
$1,000 |
23% |
|
|
Ideological/Single Issue |
$3,300 |
77% |
How complete are this candidate’s campaign finance reports?
Another campaign report from opensecrets.org
P R E S I D E N T I A L C A N D I D A T E
Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
Former mayor
Giuliani’s confidential fundraising strategy was out even before his campaign started—when his staff lost a dossier put together by his chief fundraiser. But even with the secret out, Giuliani managed to bring in more money the second quarter than even Mitt Romney, who emerged the winner of the money race among Republicans after the first quarter. From here on out the former New York City mayor shouldn’t have trouble bringing in enough cash to be competitive, especially as Republican John McCain flounders. New York was the biggest giver of all metropolitan areas in 2006.
Total Receipts: $47,253,521
Total Spent: $30,603,695
Cash on Hand: $16,649,826
Debts: $169,256
Date of last report: September 30, 2007
Totals may include compliance fund receipts
Source of Funds:
(How to read this chart / methodology)
|
Individual contributions |
$44,757,662 |
95% |
|
|
PAC contributions |
$265,992 |
1% |
|
|
Candidate self-financing |
$0 |
0% |
|
|
Federal Funds |
$0 |
0% |
|
|
Other |
$2,229,867 |
5% |
PAC Contribution Breakdown:
(How to read this chart / methodology)
|
Business |
$66,135 |
61% |
|
|
Labor |
$0 |
0% |
|
|
Ideological/Single Issue |
$42,268 |
39% |
How complete are this candidate’s campaign finance reports?
| (How to read this chart / methodology) | ||||
|
Full Disclosure |
$29,053,809 |
(88.0%) |
|
|
Incomplete |
$0 |
||
 |
No Disclosure |
$3,974,170 |
(12.0%) |
|
