It appears that the fact that Barack Obama raised about 2 1/2 times as much money as Hillary Clinton during January (~$32.5 million to ~$13.5 million) is being felt by the Clinton campaign.
Hillary Rodham Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million late last month as Barack Obama outraised and outspent her in the Democratic presidential race.Clinton told reporters at her campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va., that she made the loan, adding, "I believe the campaign would have a great month fundraising in January. We intended to be competitive and we were."
Obama, riding a wave of fundraising both from large donors and small Internet contributors, collected a stunning $32 million in January. Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said the Clinton campaign raised only $13.5 million for the month. The $5 million was in addition to that amount, Wolfson said.
[...]
Hillary and Bill Clintons' financial disclosures, which reveal only broad ranges of assets, place their wealth between $10 million to $50 million.
Clinton's loan puts her nowhere near Mitt Romney range. In fact, it puts her closer to the range of another Massachusetts politician who was significantly more successful in his bid for his party's nomination -- John Kerry, who lent his campaign $6.4 million during his 2004 campaign.
In a sense, I don't see this as a sign of weakness, as some might argue. The amount of money the Clinton campaign reportedly brought in during January -- $13.5 million for the month -- if replicated over the following two months would yield her best fundraising quarter to date (over $40 million in three months). The Clinton campaign's needs arise not, then, from a fundraising failure but rather from the fact that the Obama campaign was able to shatter -- and I do mean shatter -- any and all expectations and records by taking in more than $32 million in January.
On the other hand, while the Clintons are indeed wealthy at this juncture, their assets are not on par to those of Romney. As a result, they cannot afford to write large check after large check to the Clinton presidential campaign. As such, unless the Obama fundraising freight train slows down significantly or the Clinton campaign's fundraising efforts go from great to even better than stellar, something may have to give.
Update [2008-2-6 17:1:25 by Todd Beeton]:I thought Ambinder had an interesting take:
But perceptually, it could turn her into an underdog, and it could prove Obama's statement today that Clinton is "the frontrunner" to be vacuous. How can the frontrunner be tied for delegates and be nearly broke? The move could help with her grassroots fundraising. She'd be able to show potential donors than she will sacrifice as she's asking them to sacrifice. One can imagine a fundraising appeal along the lines of: "Help Us Match HIllary!"
If there's one thing we've learned from the Republican race it's that you can't buy the nomination. Between Kerry in 04 and McCain in 08, the money disparity is no longer the sign of weakness it used to be and as Ambinder notes, it could even be a plus.
Update [2008-2-6 17:35:47 by Jonathan Singer]: Another voice worth looking at -- Bill Clinton less than two months ago:
"We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us. [...] For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform."
That's something the Clinton campaign might have to deal with this news cycle...
|
|
|
Permalink :: 60 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
