Sam Stein

BIO

Sam Stein

The Huffington Post

Obama Outspending Clinton 2.3 to 1 In Pennsylvania Ad Buys

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

April 21, 2008 10:27 AM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

About Sam Stein

Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity. He has a masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is a graduate of Dartmouth College. Sam can be reached at stein@huffingtonpost.com.


As the Pennsylvania primary approaches, Sen. Barack Obama has tapped into an unmatched wealth of financial resources in an effort to deliver the electoral knockout punch, outspending Sen. Hillary Clinton by a margin of roughly 2.3-to-1 on ad buys alone.

According to figures provided by a campaign source, Obama has spent $11,246,573 in media purchases in Pennsylvania, almost 3 dollars ($2.78) for every registered Democrat in the state and roughly $1.87 million a week. Clinton has spent $4,852,541, a bit more than $800,000 a week.

Clinton's disadvantage is tempered a bit by the expenditures of the American Leadership Project, a 527 group funded by her supporters, which has poured more than $360,000 into Pennsylvania ad buys. But even when it comes to allied political groups, Obama has a deeper well of resources. The Service Employees International Union, which has endorsed the senator, has spent more than $540,000 on in-state media.

The totals reflect the difficult electoral reality confronting Clinton. Despite superior name recognition and a built in political infrastructure, her campaign has run into a brick wall of Obama resources in the most recent primary elections. It's likely to get worse. According to the most recent filings, Obama had $42 million on hand going into April while Clinton, considering campaign debts, was $1 million in the red.

And yet, how much expectations should be raised for Sen. Obama based on these figures alone is debatable. Despite outspending Clinton in Ohio, he was only able to make up a portion of his political deficit in that state.

 
 

Comments
270
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)


I guess this means Obama has cahnged his mind on campaign finance reform.

He used to talk about a "level playing field" verses "the candidate with the most money wins."

But now that he's the candidate with the most money -- he's gone quiet on the subject.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:06 PM on 04/21/2008

Why the DNC would be foolish to nominate Clinton: They could never replace the Obama fundraising machine.

This is clearest bottomline reason the DNC will give it to Obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:46 PM on 04/21/2008

Here's a way, way out thought: (Just a conclusion I came to with all the craziness going on.)

1.Hillary and Bill both meet with Richard Mellon Scaife on separate occasions. Richard Mellon Scaife who accused them of murder and who financed the "vast right wing conspiracy" against them...that guy.

2.Then Wright controversy goes into overdrive.

3. A few days ago Rove gives away his political strategy to be used against Obama: a strategy based on mccarthyish tactics and making Obama appear like the friend of so-called communist terrorist Ayers.

4.Then Rendell goes on Fox to praise them for their great coverage of his candidate Hillary.

5.Hillary comes out with a last minute fear & terror ad right out of the Rove playbook, contradicting Bill's statement in 2004: You'd better vote for the candidate who wants you to think and hope (as opposed to the one who scares you with fear).

Am I to conclude that Scaife, Rove and Fox are in Hillary's camp?

Does the Patriot Act allow Bush to spy on someone who is suspected of having ties to a communist terrorist? If so, then can I conclude:

1. HILLARY: Manchurian Candidate
2. McCain: Fall Guy in November
3. Obama: Target of the neo-cons

Bill Clinton asks us to think, so I'm thinking: what the hell is going on here?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:13 PM on 04/21/2008

I think your imagination is in overdrive. Lord, now I have heard all. First, I read an article that said that there were many journalists who knew in the very beginning of the campaign about Rev. Wright. Many thought they owed it to the public to come out with it when they did. But you know what If I were writing a book, for selling qualities, I like your ideas better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:31 PM on 04/21/2008


WHERE is Obama REALLY getting all that money from??? Sounds like there is a cartel out there who are bankrolling him into office. This strange man will not even salute our flag. He hangs in there with the anti-american Rev. Wright by his side. His wife has expressed a lot of anger against this country. He has been instilled with all of this sick way of thinking and obviously is not fit to be our president.

Is it a coincidence that his name is so close to Osama ??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:12 PM on 04/21/2008

Voter ignorance is really appalling. Campaign money is closely audited and accounted for by the FEC. Obama's donors are chiefly middle class wage earners who are reaching deep to bankroll a man they believe in and who they believe will serve our Country well. Anyone who thinks a candidate is worth their support is free to contribute in like manner. Go online and help your candidate if you feel that level of confidence.
For the last time, the famous flag picture depicts the time when the Pledge had concluded and people were singing the National Anthem. Military people maintain the salute through both the Pledge and National Anthem, ordinary citizens typically do not.
He, like many other men in this Country, is named after his father. He is a junior. His middle name is his grandfather's first name. There is no hidden relevance to his unusual name. His father was an African national and his name was passed on to his son. Nothing more.
Thankfully, we do have a democracy where everyone gets just one vote, and all the venom, suspicion and hate they have for another candidate is absolutely irrelevant. I consider these posts free therapy for the frustrated losers.
Obama '08 YES, WE CAN!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:53 PM on 04/21/2008

I read on another site that Obama has enough gadfathers in the Ara/muslim world working for him to get as much money as possible. We all know that money $$$ is no problem in the Arab world. Someday, somehow will all come out about those millions. Hope it won't be tooooo late.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 PM on 04/21/2008

just silly

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:41 PM on 04/21/2008

He can outspend because he has more money in his cofers. (Thanks to good money managment).
He must outspend her because there are many in Pennsylvania who really do not know him. Hlllary already has name recongition.

She can't catch him in spending because she has so badly mismanged her campaign. In fact, the NY Times reports that she is $10.3 million in debt. And you Hillary supporters actually want this woman's hands on the economy? Are you crazy? If she can't handle her own campaign's economics, how can she expect to handle this country's economy?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:59 PM on 04/21/2008

Hillary Clinton has raised a ton of money - something like $130MM -which In any other primary campaign would have been plenty. Her problem isn't raising money - her problem is that Barack has raised an obscene amount of money which would have already driven anyone else out of the race by now. Singlehandedly, Barack has destroyed any reasonable chance of campaign finance reform which attempts to work off public financing to give everyone a level playing field. A President Obama would veto such a bill if it came to his desk in 2010. Good thing he decided that he didn't actually pledge to take only public financing this time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 PM on 04/21/2008

I wish this vid could be shown to all Pennsylvania voters right before they leave home to go to the polls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyhIBXNfqMA
Kudos to the creators!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:57 PM on 04/21/2008

Hillary should be the the next president she was right about the far left clowns there just as bad as the bible beaters like sean hannity,but lefties will worship keith Oldersperm just cause he hates bush and Bill O only old farts and snake oil salesman watch him for tips on how to fool people.The whole media is just as corrupt as the politicans theres not a real left and right witj the congress split nothing will get done thats why this hole system sucks the founders suck,this system is all played out we need more independents. get all the people in the middle Hillary is the closest to that tough on foreign policy and healthcare

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:46 PM on 04/21/2008

Hillary seems to be broke. I feel the same way as some others on other sites. They said they think Obama is making her spend the money and she won't have any big donations to go on. NC is big time for Obama, maybe there's some truth to it. She won't be able to fight him there or anywhere else is she doesn't get more money. Plus she still owes all those vendors that she hasn't paid. Feel sorry for those people with the way the economy is to begin with. Now, they sit there without money from her. What a piece of work she is.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:36 PM on 04/21/2008

Do you know why.Because they have a huge black population.Whats your point!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:57 PM on 04/21/2008

I am from Pa and noone is talking about an article that appeared in the state's papers in March. Hillary's campaign failed to register its total number of delegates before the deadline. They didn't think Pa would be in play and were 22 delegates short of the number she had to register. Don't know the full ramifications. This could come back to haunt her some delegates might be listed as uncommitted in her column. Another oversight by he well oiled machine.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 04/21/2008

Obama has to outspend Clinton because the majority of voters are voting for Clinton for nostalgic reasons and she has more name recognition. So ofcourse he has to spend more money to get the word out and familiarize the voting public with who he is and what he stands for. It's pure logic! Why else is he narrowing the gap from a 20pt lead for Clinton before he got to Pennsylvania? Name recognition! Obama supporters understand this which is why they are supporting their candidate all the way!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:27 PM on 04/21/2008

Don't make excuses. I am a Clinton supporter and I a Pennsylvanian. ( I think the numbers are wrong. We watch 4-5 Obama ads to 1 of Clinton's.) He should win with all the money he poured here. We watch Obama ads all day.
Picked Hillary because she worked on many childrens projects in her early years after graduating law school. Didn't go after big money jobs. She and a group interviewed parents of handicapped children finding out what would serve them most. Boring, statistical work, a lot of pounding the pavement but it payed off. Handicapped children got into the public school system. Wasn't done years ago. Today you see them in the schools, mainstreamed with other children; it was accomplished by dedicated people who worked to provide handicapped the same opportunties as other students.
My daughter was one who benifited from this and I applaud all her good works for children and women's causes. Not because of her name recognition like you suggest. She also worked to find safe homes for battered and abused children. As the governors wife and the president's wife and today she she works for childrens' and womens' causes. She's a great fighter but we give little credit to her accomplishments. Tomorrow I will vote and in my own special way say thanks Hillary for caring for the less fortunate of God's children. Thank you from an appreciative mother.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:12 PM on 04/21/2008

Its pretty obvious that MONEY IS TALKING AND QUALIFICATIONS WALKING in this election.

SAS, SAD, SAD for America!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:37 PM on 04/21/2008

The money is coming from millions who both reject and denounce Hillary Clinton and the politics of the past.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 PM on 04/21/2008

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON " Barack Obama has widened his lead nationally for the Democratic presidential nomination despite a furor over his comments about small-town Americans, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds. Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is getting more of the blame among those who say their contest has become too negative.
As the candidates make a final push for votes in today's Pennsylvania primary, Obama leads the survey by 50%-40% among Democrats and voters who lean Democratic. That's a bigger edge than the 7 percentage-point lead he held in the USA TODAY poll last month.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:32 PM on 04/21/2008

she talking about the furor that msm and pundits and clinton/mccain attempted to incite but failed. because they faiked to realize just how tired people are of the status quo.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:48 PM on 04/21/2008

Obama and Clinton should take all of that money they're wasting bashing each other, money that they are receiving from all of the so called hurting Americans, their grass roots movements, and spend it on something that would actually help the people they're pretending to try and help!! Put some of those millions back into the education system. They could build 7 or 8 brand new schools that are dearly needed around here, instead they waste it bashing each other on television!! Jokes on us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 04/21/2008

Here's a way, way out thought: (Just a conclusion I came to with all the craziness going on.)

1.Hillary and Bill both meet with Richard Mellon Scaife on separate occasions. Richard Mellon Scaife who accused them of murder and who financed the "vast right wing conspiracy" against them...that guy.

2.Then Wright controversy goes into overdrive.

3. A few days ago Rove gives away his political strategy to be used against Obama: a strategy based on mccarthyish tactics and making Obama appear like the friend of so-called communist terrorist Ayers.

4.Then Rendell goes on Fox to praise them for their great coverage of his candidate Hillary.

5.Hillary comes out with a last minute fear & terror ad right out of the Rove playbook, contradicting Bill's statement in 2004: You'd better vote for the candidate who wants you to think and hope (as opposed to the one who scares you with fear).

Am I to conclude that Scaife, Rove and Fox are in Hillary's camp?

Does the Patriot Act allow Bush to spy on someone who is suspected of having ties to a communist terrorist? If so, then can I conclude:

1. HILLARY: Manchurian Candidate
2. McCain: Fall Guy in November
3. Obama: Target of the neo-cons

Bill Clinton asks us to think, so I'm thinking: what the hell is going on here?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:04 PM on 04/21/2008

I'm sorry, but I have to say I find this argument rather pointless.

Yes of course it would be lovely if the candidates didn't have to raise and/or spend money, but they do. So yes, it will be millions and yes, it's lovely to think that maybe people could have donated it to some other causes.

And ultimately the money raised and spent IS going to education and ending the war in Iraq, or helping more people get health care. The budget of the US government is in the trillions and the POTUS will be steering it and deciding where money gets spent and where. And that is more than either candidate will have raised and spent.

If we aren't willing to have tighter controls on when candidates can campaign, have it restricted to public funds and pretty much run it like say, Britain does, than both candidate have to work within the framework they are given.

I'm sure both would like to stop having to spend money, especially campaigning against each other, and instead be focuing on McCain and when one of them wins, cleaning up the country. But eh, we have the system we do. I don't expect or condemn either Hillary or Obama for playing by it's rules.

Now if you want to talk about changing the whole system? I'm totally for that. But just wringing your hands about the individual candidates is meaningless to me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:00 PM on 04/21/2008

Agreed!!!

But BOTH camps like slinging mud too much for that to happen. Have you read Huffpo recently?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 04/21/2008

You might want to consider this......
http://www.paulvclinton.com/pp_complaint_022504_njw.pdf

Now how really cares about Pennsylvanians kids' education, Clinton or Obama supporters?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 04/21/2008

Agree with you 100%

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 04/21/2008

Maybe hillary can pick up spare change like she used to:

Donor Contradicts White House
The Los Angeles Times
Sunday, July 27, 1997

Contradicting accounts by the Clinton administration, one of the Democratic Party's biggest campaign donors says he gave a $50,000 check to the first lady's chief of staff on White House grounds in 1995 in direct response to solicitations by aides of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Southern California entrepreneur Johnny Chung said he was seeking VIP treatment for a delegation of visiting Chinese businessmen when he was asked to help the first lady defray the cost of White House Christmas receptions billed to the Democratic National Committee.

Chung, who has refused to cooperate with investigators unless granted immunity from prosecution, said in interviews that he realized such special treatment hinged on his willingness to make a political contribution.

"I see the White House is like a subway"you have to put in coins to open the gates," Chung said in his first public comments on the controversial episode.

On Friday, White House communications director Ann Lewis disputed Chung's account. She said of the first lady's aides: "At no time did they solicit a contribution from Mr. Chung..."


"...Margaret A. Williams, the first lady's former chief of staff, who has acknowledged accepting Chung's check, is the subject of a pending inquiry by the federal agency charged with enforcing the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from soliciting contributions, as well as by congressional panels probing campaign finance abuses..."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 04/21/2008

Why is it that all these people support Hillary but they don't send her any money? LMAO

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:02 PM on 04/21/2008

There is no way that $48,000.000 en 1 month are coming from voters supporters. No way!
I read somewhere that Obama's campaign $$$$ was coming from the Arab/Muslim nations thru special groups and then as contribution to the internet. This, makes more sense. I believe it!

Read that Farakkan, J.Wrights, Kaddafi, Oding and others were working hard to get enough money to Obama's campaign. That post was written by an American/Muslim woman woman living in the States already.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:18 PM on 04/21/2008

May be because they are real dems who realize saving cash to fight Mccain is more important that tithing to the cult of Obama to help him get richer?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 PM on 04/21/2008

He doesn't personally gain financially as you have implied. Unlike Hillary who is charging her campaign interest for that measley $5 mil. she "loaned" her campaign.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00431569/324192/sc/ALL

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:29 PM on 04/21/2008

I heard a "typical" Pennsylvania Democrat say that he had WAITED YEARS to vote for Hillary. She had stood by Bill and deserved the Presidency. THAT is why Obama has had to spend so much. Voters like this man made up their minds years ago. They seem to be equating the Clintons with a pre-9/11 world, a world that is not going to return no matter who wins. And not only is a mind a terrible thing to waste but it's a harder thing to change.

With a reasonable amount of amnesia, one can wax nostalgic about that wonderful, pre-Y2K world when we could indulge in bimbo eruptions, travel office, cattle futures and billing scandals without worrying about where Kabul and Basra were or whether it's the Shi'as, Sunnis, Taliban, Rev. Wright or Al-Qaeda out to get us. A world when we could all keep on our Manolo Blahniks when we flew to New Orleans to spend some of our vast dotcom fortunes (that we'd made on penny stocks in the New Economy).

We keep hearing how poor, old Pennsylvania is in the tank, so why is it a bad thing that Obama has pumped over $11 million into its local coffers? It's not like they're going to get stuck with the tab. He's good for it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:48 PM on 04/21/2008

cHECK OUT ED RANDELL , FOR HILLARY YOU DECIDE FOLLOW LINK


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo7fIPW8Tu0

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 PM on 04/21/2008

Headline: "OUTSPENT" Replaces "BITTER" as Clinton Talking Point" as in, Obama has outspent Clinton in Pennsylvania by 4 to 1..So far this morning at least four Clinton surrogates have dutifully repeated the identical talking point like Stepford Wives: "IObama has "outspent" Clinton in Pennsylvania". Is it possible that Clinton has more campaign debt than spending money right now because she is a dreadful manager who pays millions to a consultant for bad advice and runs up a four-figure tab (unpaid) in a rural diner for one lunch.? Is it also possible that Obama is able to outspend Clinton because people, not PACS or lobbyists, have contributed in droves to his campaign and he is careful with other people's money ? This thing about "outspending" on Obama's part is just another pathetic excuse for Clinton's failure on every level and her sycophants who are spouting her rhetoric are not fooling anyone but themselves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 04/21/2008

Only 2.3 to 1? Glad I sent Sen. Obama another $100 today.

$14 million to Penn's firm?

She had all the money in the world, all the name recongnition any politician could ask for, all of Bill's Democratic machine friends. and she has still lost 28 states, the delagate count, and the popular vote to a one term Sen. who is African American and named Barak Obama.

I am an HR professional, and if I were interviewing her my first question would be, "and what part of this disaster wasn't your fault?" Needless to say, I wouldn't hire her to manage anthing. Certainly not the United States of America.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:27 PM on 04/21/2008

Its sad that Obama's pretty speaches and tons of money are buying his nomination.
I still say ITS BETTER TO BE DISLIKED FOR WHO YOU ARE THAN LOVED FOR WHO YOU ARE NOT!
I agree Sen. Clinton's strenght, loyalty, dedication, persistence and Experience should earn her the presidential nomination. Ofcourse voters have to be pretty smart to look things for what they are and not for what they think they are.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:35 PM on 04/21/2008

avoiding the truth that hillary was her own worst enemy

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:12 PM on 04/21/2008