Bush Has Big Money Advantage

[Blackthorn]

Bush has kept his powder dry to this point in the campaign and it seems that it might pay off at least in terms of his ability to drive a full court press in advertising through to the November election.

CNN.com Linkie

WASHINGTON (AP) -- John Kerry cut his campaign spending sharply last month in an effort to stretch $75 million in government funding, but he still started September with several million less than President Bush.

Bush's financial advantage heading into the campaign's final weeks stems from the GOP's decision to hold its presidential nominating convention a month later than the Democratic gathering.

Not only does Kerry have to make his $75 million in full government financing for the general-election phase of the campaign last a month longer than Bush does, but the Democratic National Committee is burning through its money to promote its nominee faster than the Republican National Committee is. (Special Report: America Votes 2004, the Money)

Kerry spent $10 million last month, starting September with $62 million just as Bush was about to get his $75 million from the Federal Election Commission. Kerry's August spending compares with $36 million in July when he could still use private contributions to cover campaign costs.

The DNC started this month with $56 million in the bank after spending roughly $55 million in August, much of it on TV and radio ads supporting Kerry and opposing Bush.

The Republican National Committee spent about $20 million in August, starting September with nearly $94 million on hand. The party nominated Bush on September 2, putting an end to his private campaign fund raising just over a month after Kerry's nomination put an end to his.

Both parties are aggressively raising money to spend in the presidential race. In addition to the unlimited amounts they can spend independent of their nominees, each can spend roughly $16 million in coordination with them.

"We either pull out all the stops over the next few weeks or we will live to regret it," Democratic strategist James Carville told prospective donors in a DNC fund-raising letter sent last week.

Kerry and Bush can assist the party fund-raising efforts, though they can no longer raise campaign money for themselves. Both headlined party fund-raisers in New York on Monday; Kerry helped the DNC raise $4 million, while the RNC took in $3 million at an event featuring Bush.

Bush raised a record $260 million for his re-election bid through last month, including $18 million in August. His total was more than double the presidential record of roughly $106 million he set in the 2000 primary race, when he had GOP opponents.

Bush spent nearly $224 million from the official start of his re-election effort in May 2003 through last month, according to a monthly campaign finance report he filed Monday with the Federal Election Commission. He spent about $14 million in August.

Ads consumed roughly $87 million of Bush's money, according to an analysis by the Political Money Line campaign finance tracking service.

Bush finished the primary campaign with nearly $37 million on hand and only about $21,000 in bills to pay.

He cannot spend the leftover money on his own campaign, but can give it to the GOP and other candidates.

Kerry raised $233 million and spent at least $185 million from the start of his campaign in January 2003 through July, when private fund-raising ended for his campaign.

The DNC raised about $202 million from January 2003 through last month and spent about $147 million, while the RNC raised at least $271 million and spent roughly $182 million, campaign finance reports the parties filed Monday show.

[Ustwo]

Does this include the CBS news budget?

I kid because I love

Kerry has a lot more '527' money then Bush does which can't be ignored in the picture.

[Blackthorn]

The '527' ads for either side --- I just find myself laughing at them. Are there really ass hats out there that buy the stories told by any of those things?

CBS -- I loved watching Dan Blather have to swallow it last night.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by kjroh

The '527' ads for either side --- I just find myself laughing at them. Are there really ass hats out there that buy the stories told by any of those things?

Yea but we talked about them on this board and some people think they are effective. Maybe they are over the top, but they are looking for that 1% vote. Perhaps they turn more people off then on but thats debatable.

[seretogis]

One word: Soros.

[cthulu23]

Although they haven't been brought up yet, I'd like to correct the common misconception that moveon.org is a 527. they aren't....they are a much more regulated PAC. It's amazing what you can find out when you stop listening to sound bites.

Soros' donations don't do much to offset the money advantage that Bush has. If being suported by the incredibly wealthy is wrong, then I believe that Bush don't wanna be right.

Edit: By the way, the fact that those 60 Minutes TANG documents were forged doesn't prove that Bush fulfilled his duty. Plain and simple, he never reported for duty in Massachusetts.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Although they haven't been brought up yet, I'd like to correct the common misconception that moveon.org is a 527. they aren't....they are a much more regulated PAC. It's amazing what you can find out when you stop listening to sound bites.

Soros' donations don't do much to offset the money advantage that Bush has. If being suported by the incredibly wealthy is wrong, then I believe that Bush don't wanna be right.

This might shock you but Bush/Republicans have more 'small' money donors then the Democrats do. This is why the democrats are 'suffering' under campaign finance reform.

Democrats have always relied on big donations from big money while the republicans have a much bigger base of 'Joe Average' who contribute.

If you took all big money out of politics, Republicans wouldn't lose a step.

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This might shock you but Bush/Republicans have more 'small' money donors then the Democrats do. This is why the democrats are 'suffering' under campaign finance reform.

Democrats have always relied on big donations from big money while the republicans have a much bigger base of 'Joe Average' who contribute.

If you took all big money out of politics, Republicans wouldn't lose a step.

Individual donations don't necessarily have anything to do with "Joe Average." Witness Bush's "Pioneer" $100K+ donors. Both parties are up to their ears in corporate money. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.

[powerclown]

Kerry has plenty of money, too.
If he ever needs more, he can ask his wife for some. She's a billionaire.

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by powerclown

Kerry has plenty of money, too.
If he ever needs more, he can ask his wife for some. She's a billionaire.

Unlike the po' 'ol Bush clan...not a pot to piss in. Of course, this isn't relevant, but neither is Ms. Kerry's money.

[powerclown]

It's relevant to the extent that you think money is a factor in this election.

[cthulu23]

Money is a factor in every election...ask any politician. Of course, there is a limit to what individuals can contribute directly to a campaign, so ketchup (or oil) money will only get you so far.

[powerclown]

Who's to say she can't give it to someone else to give to the Kerry campaign?
Or to moveon.org, or to any other pro-Kerry entity??
Money isn't a factor in this election, insofar as one candidate can grossly outspend the other. They both have boatfulls.

[Ustwo]

Never said the Republicans don't have big money donors, what I am saying is they don't need it to run their campaign. Democrats are far more reliant on it then Republicans.

[cthulu23]

Powerclown,

Ms. Kerry would catch tons of shit if she gave boatloads of money to moveon.org, witness the crucifixion of Mr. Soros, but you are right in that the money is much closer this election than is was with Gore (must be the fear factor). Regardless of that, let's not pretend that money isn't a primary concern in american politics. In fact, the high cost of elections (primarily due to TV advertising costs) has helped to transform both parties into fund raising whores.

Ustwo,

I'd like to see some facts to back up that statement. As an occasional third party organizer, I feel that both parties are irrefutably hooked on big dollars. It takes an awful lot of $20 donations to raise over $200 million. Can we look beyond party propganda here?

[onetime2]

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Although they haven't been brought up yet, I'd like to correct the common misconception that moveon.org is a 527. they aren't....they are a much more regulated PAC. It's amazing what you can find out when you stop listening to sound bites.

They are not strictly a PAC, MoveOn is a 527, PAC, and 501c4.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527grps.asp