Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    09 Oct '15 20:571 edit
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-is-raising-more-money-than-every-republican-candidate-155430566.html#

    Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Both beat out all GOP rivals with the most cash.

    It’s undoubtedly the era of Big Money in politics. But for the time being, donors giving relatively small amounts are shaping the 2016 presidential election more than any billionaire sugar daddy.

    Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist and most left-leaning presidential candidate, is surprising the whole field with unexpected fundraising prowess. Sanders’s campaign says it raised $26 million from July through September, which would be more than every single Republican candidate raised during the same period. The only person who pulled in more cash was Sanders’ fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, who took in $28 million. Here’s a tally of the fundraising so far for 10 major candidates:


    Those figures are incomplete because the candidates have until Oct. 15 to officially report their fundraising totals. But the campaigns for Sanders, Clinton, Rubio, Carson, Cruz and Paul have released their totals early, and the Bush campaign said it raised more in the third quarter than in the second. Trump, Fiorina and Huckabee haven’t yet released any fundraising information for the third quarter.

    The obvious surprise is the relatively large cash haul for candidates once considered fringy, namely Sanders, Carson and Cruz. All three characterize themselves as renegades bent on disrupting politics as usual, a message that clearly resonates with voters who see Washington as a cauldron of corruption.

    At this stage in the campaign, fundraising basically determines who can afford to stay in throughout the primaries next spring, and who needs to bail. Weak numbers for Rand Paul and second-tier Republicans such as Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum suggest the field could narrow soon. Same with Democrat Martin O’Malley. Republican Carly Fiorina may be in a grey zone, but a strong performance in the latest Republican debate raised her visibility and probably her fundraising, so she may stick around for a while.

    Campaign money vs. super PAC money

    Money donated to campaigns is only part of the story, of course. There are also hugely important “super PACs” that can provide many millions of additional dollars for spending on advertisements and other efforts essential to a winning campaign. Successful candidates need to pull in both types of money. Donations made directly to a campaign are capped at $5,400, yet that money is crucial because it funds campaign staff, travel, and all the other administrative costs of a campaign. That makes it important to draw donations from a wide base of individuals, which Sanders, Carson, Cruz, Clinton and Bush have apparently been able to do.

    There's no limit on money donated to super PACs, and that seems likely to give Republicans an overall edge. Bush’s super PAC raised $103 million in the first half of the 2015, or 9 times as much as his campaign. Several super PACs supporting Cruz have raised roughly $40 million from a handful of rich donors. Rubio’s super PAC raised a modest $16 million through June, but it could make up lost ground by gaining some of the donors who backed Scott Walker until he exited the race last month.

    Hillary Clinton’s super PAC, meanwhile, has underperformed. It pulled in just $15.6 million through June, putting her outside-funding war chest behind the top three Republican candidates. Super PACs don’t have to file their next set of funding reports until the end of January, so that money race could look significantly different by the time we see the latest numbers.

    None of that will affect Bernie Sanders, who has rejected the idea of forming a super PAC or raising money in big chunks from rich donors. So he’ll remain an underdog no matter how much money his campaign raises. Which seems to suit him fine.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    09 Oct '15 21:02
    Whoever raises the most money wins!! 😵

    It's the best government money can buy.
  3. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    10 Oct '15 10:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-is-raising-more-money-than-every-republican-candidate-155430566.html#

    Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Both beat out all GOP rivals with the most cash.

    It’s undoubtedly the era of Big Money in politics. But for the time being, donors giving relatively small amounts are shaping the 2016 presidential electi ...[text shortened]... l remain an underdog no matter how much money his campaign raises. Which seems to suit him fine.
    Thank you for telling us what we already know. 😴😴😴😴
  4. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    10 Oct '15 10:44
    It's worth gettting clear that candidates who can rely on uncapped funding through "super PACs" simply do not need the same level of direct funding. They need enough of course, but strategically can rely on the corrupt system of PACs as a more effective way to scoop up the backing of the billionaries who really run American politics. It's not unlike the way rich people take much of their income as capital gains instead of wages to get tax advantages in a system distorted to meet their needs (and the needs of the corporations, whose patriotism is less than zero and commitment to the public interest is zilch) at the expense of democracy. Why waste too much on early stage candidates when the money can be held back for the ones that win the nominations?
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    10 Oct '15 10:591 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    It's worth gettting clear that candidates who can rely on uncapped funding through "super PACs" simply do not need the same level of direct funding. They need enough of course, but strategically can rely on the corrupt system of PACs as a more effective way to scoop up the backing of the billionaries who really run American politics. It's not unlike the w ...[text shortened]... on early stage candidates when the money can be held back for the ones that win the nominations?
    I reject all this elitist disdain for the average voter. The People can vote for who they choose; time and time again we have seen very well-funded candidates be defeated in all kinds of races. Of course it helps to have money to spend, but if the People reject your positions, money is a poor substitute for ideas.

    When Bernie wins without a dime of Super Pac money, this will become clearer.
  6. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    10 Oct '15 11:13
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I reject all this elitist disdain for the average voter. The People can vote for who they choose; time and time again we have seen very well-funded candidates be defeated in all kinds of races. Of course it helps to have money to spend, but if the People reject your positions, money is a poor substitute for ideas.

    When Bernie wins without a dime of Super Pac money, this will become clearer.
    That would be good and I hope he does win, or at least does well enough to break the political mould that is making such a farce of current political discourse in the US. The mould he needs to break is the one in which the candidate with most money wins and that is pretty firmly established as you know but I agree there is room for a popular movement to counter the interests of the 1%. After all, in the later Sixties the USA saw an outpouring of anti war sentiment and support for the civil rights movement that suggested the scope for things to be different. Things can be different.
  7. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    10 Oct '15 12:46
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I reject all this elitist disdain for the average voter. The People can vote for who they choose; time and time again we have seen very well-funded candidates be defeated in all kinds of races. Of course it helps to have money to spend, but if the People reject your positions, money is a poor substitute for ideas.

    When Bernie wins without a dime of Super Pac money, this will become clearer.
    Of course it helps to have money to spend, and of course this can be prevented by making bribery illegal. Sure, democracy in the US is functioning better than in Zimbabwe, but don't you want to set the bar a little higher?
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    10 Oct '15 12:57
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Of course it helps to have money to spend, and of course this can be prevented by making bribery illegal. Sure, democracy in the US is functioning better than in Zimbabwe, but don't you want to set the bar a little higher?
    "Bribery" meaning what? Is a proposal to raise the minimum wage "bribery"? Is a proposal to cut corporate taxes? AFAIK, bribery is illegal in the US but Madison recognized 225 years years ago that the regulation of various interested economic classes was "the principle task of modern legislation". It is expected that such groups will bring what political power they have to advance their interests; I see no reason to assume that this must inevitable result in what we have now. The tools for change are there.
  9. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    10 Oct '15 13:37
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    "Bribery" meaning what? Is a proposal to raise the minimum wage "bribery"? Is a proposal to cut corporate taxes? AFAIK, bribery is illegal in the US but Madison recognized 225 years years ago that the regulation of various interested economic classes was "the principle task of modern legislation". It is expected that such groups will bring what political ...[text shortened]... to assume that this must inevitable result in what we have now. The tools for change are there.
    Bribery meaning practically unlimited "donations" to political candidates.
  10. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82239
    11 Oct '15 05:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    Whoever raises the most money wins!! 😵

    It's the best government money can buy.
    Given the resonance within American politics for policies that favor unbridled unfettered capitalism, you do end up with the type of government you deserve... 😀
  11. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65530
    11 Oct '15 06:571 edit
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Given the resonance within American politics for policies that favor unbridled unfettered capitalism, you do end up with the type of government you deserve... 😀
    'Unbridled, unfettered capitalism', or to use the more common term, 'laissez faire capitalism' or the more correct term, simply, 'capitalism' is a rare thing in American politics, you're more likely to find more pure examples of capitalism at a weekend car boot sale, farmers market or in the black market, small places where the tentacles of busybodies, control freaks and second-handers have not yet reached.
Back to Top