Barack Obama

Obama Leads All Candidates With Tons of $$$

|

Apres Super Tuesday, it's a good time to check in on the pocketbooks of various candidates.

From the NY Times:

President Obama has collected over $!51 million so far, far ahead of the next guy, Mitt Romney. The former governor has raked in $64 million so far, and Ron Paul is a distant third with $31 million.

At this point in 2008, Obama had about $104 million (less than Hillary Clinton) and Romney had about $90 million.

When it comes to Super PACS, those independent groups that can spend whatever they want as long as they don't coordinate with a candidate, Romney is doing well. Restore Our Future, helmed by former Romney associates, has shelled out $31 million to date, with about half that total going toward attacks on Newt "The Tortoise" Gingrich. The former Speaker has benefited from about $16 million from Winning Our Future, whose major backer Sheldon Adelson, has coughed up about $10 million of the total.

Obama-friendly independent groups haven't really started dishing out the dollars yet, mostly because the incumbent isn't yet in full campaign mode. But the union AFSCME has used $1.5 million so far, all of which went to attacking Mitt Romney.

A few weeks back, Obama flipped his position and is now foursquare behind Super PACs raising money for his re-election. The results for the highest-profile group, Priorities USA, were embarasssing earlier this year— they raised less than $600,000 in January—but they just got a controversial $1 million pledge from Bill Maher (Sarah Palin, whom Maher has called "a cunt" and "a twat," is demanding the group refuse the donation "for the sake of everyone's daughter"). And last year, they raised $19 million.

Once the Dem and Rep candidates are fully in place, expect a lot more money to come loose. The two Karl Rove groups, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, raked in $51 million last year.

In 2008, Obama's campaign (not counting affiliated groups!) raised around $750 million, more than what Bush and Kerry spent combined in 2004. That figure could crack the billion-dollar mark this time around.

While you're carrying the numbers in your head, check out 3 Reasons Not to Get Worked Up Over Super PACs:

NEXT: The Most Amazing Thing About Media Matters' List of Dumb Things Rush Limbaugh Has Said: It Stops at 15

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Typo – it’s “$151” million, not “$!51”

    1. Arrrgh! Beat me to it!

    2. He should correct it to say “$one51 million”.

  2. The NYT is wrong; Adelson has pledged up to $100 million. How much has been spent might only be 10 million though; I don’t know why the pac wouldn’t be pushing harder this late in the game.

  3. Whenever I debate with a liberal about Super Pac’s and the Citizen United decision I always get the “corporations will simply buy these elections and guarantee their cronies get elected” speech, which is supposed to scare me because I value personal liberty. But when I ask them why is it ok that Unions can outspend anyone -including corporations- in terms of political donations while organizing astroturfed protests to silence any criticism and yet they don’t even get mentioned as a dangerous political influence.

    Typical answer- “Well, Unions are different……because…..you know..”

    Uh huh.

    1. You obfuscate the premise here:

      Unions ARE corporations. They’re just mad the playing field is leveled.

      1. I know that anon. But good luck explaining this to the left.

        This is their math:

        Unions = Saintly defending workers rights, through democratic representation.

        Corporations = evil monocled wearing fatcats.

        1. I really wish some huge company like UPS would just fire everyone the next time their employees threaten a strike. Fucking thugs.

          1. I’ve always hated unions ever since I had to pay union dues WHEN I WAS FARKING FOURTEEN YEARS OLD because I was working in the produce section of a grocery store.

            I DON’T NEED A UNION WHEN I’M FOURTEEN AND WORKING IN A GODDAMN GROCERY STORE.

            1. Nice little bike ya got there. Shame if sumpin happened to it …

          2. There is a federal law against that. Ther shouldn’t be, but there is.

            1. …should read ther(e).

        2. It’s even simpler than that.

          unions = us

          corporations = them

          Rules apply to them, not us.

  4. I thought Obama represents the 99% who live in third world squaler?

    1. Only to the poorly informed.

      Expect those grateful for a 550 point increase in the S&P 500 to “share the wealth” out of gratitude.

      Obama has been great for the 1%.

      1. Only because inflation hurts poor people more than rich people.

  5. I like the picture of Maher and the 2 cunts.

    1. You mean, “sluts”.

      Welcome.

      1. To be accurate, it’s one cunt, one slut, and one douche.

        1. George Thorogood approves.

    2. 2-Cunt.

      Was he East Coast or West Coast?

  6. SUPER PACS!!!11!

  7. Super PACS, those independent groups that can spend whatever they want as long as they don’t coordinate with a candidate

    “Campaign Finance Reform”, biotches!

  8. Saying that Obama “flipped his position” on SuperPACs is like saying that FDR “flipped his position” on going to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor.

    I don’t know when unilateral disarmament became the sin qua non of being an honest advocate of campaign finance reform.

    Vewy Sowwy Libtards, but, no, we liberals are not going to substitute voluntary payments for the progressive taxation policies we advocate; & we are not going to forfeit campaign finance mechanisms we seek to reform while they remain unreformed.

    And you can damn well bet that the other side isn’t going to be satisfied with a “don’t-like-abortion-then-don’t-have-one” policy, or a “don’t-like-marijuana-then-don’t-smoke-it” policy.

    This smug little debating non-tactic of trying to equate a public policy initiative with the private exercise of some personal virtue scores you no points with anyone, & changes exactly 0 minds.

    1. Heh. “we” said “sin qua non”.

    2. So, from what I get from this is…

      Both TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE are hypocrites?

      Didn’t we already know that?

      1. What you don’t know is the definition of “hypocrite.”

        1. hyp?o?crite
          ? ?[hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
          noun
          1.
          a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
          2.
          a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

          Yeah, that sounds about right.

          1. So, that means Team Red, amirite?!

            /we

            1. Yeah, #1 describes TEAM RED and #2 describes TEAM BLUE. Almost to perfection. Even I’m amazed at how right I am.

    3. So Obama’s not flipping his position because if he doesn’t he might lose the election? Typical progessive logic.

      1. Ends, means, what’s the difference?

    4. “we liberals are not going to substitute voluntary payments for the progressive taxation policies we advocate”

      I love this line. I can see the point on the super pacs, because its an arms race and a winner take all. If obama doesnt take the money, this hurts his aim of winning the election.

      But with voluntary taxes, it is different. The supposed reason why you advocate higher taxes is because it takes money from rich and gives it to poorer and this is more “fair”. That premise doesn’t change when it is voluntary. Its not like your money doesn’t help towards this moral goal this if it inst absolute. If a rich liberal gives money to the government voluntarily he is making the world more “fair” in his/her eyes.

      1. The reason why gentry liberals don’t do that is because they really don’t want to be taxed higher. They want other people like them to be taxed higher and may be willing to pay more themselves as the price of making other people pay. Or even better they just absolve their guilt for being wealthy by telling themselves they support a more “fair” system but this way they don’t actually have to give up their money.

        If it was just about fairness, all these loaded NE gentry liberals should be sending in checks for what they deem appropriate.

    5. we are not going to forfeit campaign finance mechanisms we seek to reform while they remain unreformed.

      No, of course not. That would require principles, something you and Barry obviously lack.

    6. having principles and sticking to them…how does that work?

      1. damn refresh. What anocoward said.

    7. Saying that Obama “flipped his position” on SuperPACs is like saying that FDR “flipped his position” on going to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor.

      you mean it was a lie the whole time, and he was just saying what needed saying to get elected?

      I agree.

  9. A few weeks back, Obama flipped his position and is now foursquare behind Super PACs raising money for his re-election.

    How is that a flip? He’s always supported anyone raising money for his re-election.

    Rules and limitations are for the other guys.

  10. It’ll all be OK once we have the right poeple in charge.

    1. That’s right! The TOP MEN are on their way to save us from ourselves!

  11. And he will be reelected.

  12. Let me be clear, these campaign contributions are not the stimulus dollars you are looking for.

  13. If Bill Maher has $1 million dollars to toss around, maybe there is something wrong with who gets rewarded in this country.

    1. OMG….you just figure this out???

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.