More Than $1 Billion Donated So Far To Presidential Candidates

A milestone in the intersection of money and politics was reached last month: more than $1 billion has been donated to candidates running for the White House.

The total, first reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, includes money that some candidates (Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney) gave to their own campaign. Nevertheless, added up, the $1,001,204,469 in cash offered to the presidential aspirants represents a historic amount of loot. In 2004, the total amount given topped out at $884 million. In 2000, it was $528 million.

But just how significant is the current haul? While the total represents more money than the GDP of at least 23 countries, it is a pittance compared to the amount spent by companies like, say, McDonald's on corporate advertising.

"It is the first time the candidates themselves have raised more than a billion and we are not into the general election," said CRP's Massie Ritsch. "On the one hand it is more money than anyone really imagined presidential candidates could raise or think they needed. On the other hand Americans will spend more money eating out in restaurants today than the candidates have raised so far."

Other watershed marks have been reached in the world of political financing. Sen. Barack Obama currently has raised more than $287 million for his campaign, besting the previous primary total of George W. Bush in 2004: $269.6 million. Meanwhile, John McCain passed the $100 million threshold, making this election the first time that four candidates (Obama, Clinton, Romney, McCain) have hit that mark.

And yet, the role of cash in this election seems likely only to grow greater, as Obama has announced that he will become the first candidate since Watergate to forgo public funding in the general election. How much money, exactly, did the Senator pass up? According to Ritsch, with public funds Obama would have only been able to spend $1.2 million dollars a day - a "restriction" he no longer will have to contend with. Seem unreasonable? "Here's how much a few major corporations spend per day on advertising alone, based on a recent article in the Washington Post," noted the Center.

* Procter and Gamble: $13.4 million
* AT&T: $9.15 million
* Ford: $7 million
* Johnson & Johnson: $6.27 million

Comments

[zull2]

I read this as "People really, really, really want a new President.­" The Dems are getting a big chunk of this and that should wave a huge, bright blue flag signifying that a very large number of people are really pissed off and letting their wallets do the talking for them.

After all, with the mortgage crisis, unemployment rate, and gas prices being what they are, disposable income is at a premium. And yet, the Dems have had a HUGE boost in fundraising over 2004. People must really hate George W. Bush and the Republican party. A whole lot of people. People willing to dip into the money they'd usually spend on necessities to make a statement means a lot. As far as Republicans go, the few that are too stubborn or unaffected to see what's going on in this country are scared into donating. But they're really not doing all that much better than they've done in the past.

[MaracaKabob]

It's a small price to pay for... did you say Billion?

[PAposter]

LMAO! but seriously, why do we have homeless/hungry people in America?

[lovethesinner]

Aren't we spending 2 billion a day on George Bush's illegal, immoral, and almost assuredly POINTLESS war in Iraq?

If Alan Greenspan and all the rest are right, and this was just about oil, it's pretty clear that the only one's meant to profit from it were the multinationals, not the American people.

WHAT EVER IT TAKES TO GET RID OF REPUBLICANS IS MONEY WELL SPENT.

[ylpatriot]

Indeed an obscene amount of $$$$$ for more pandering, lies, and duping the American Voter.

[research]

Obscene.

Public financed, limit donors to 100$, free debates for any candidate on the ballot.

Money is NOT free speech.

Corporations are NOT people.

[Mogamboguru]

Pardon me,

but inflation-adjusted, today's 1 Billion-benchmark IS BARELY EQUAL to the 528 million Dollars from the year 2000-primaries.

I am sorry to say it, but the Dollar is worth LESS today - measured in purchasing-power - than you may think.

[research]

true, but still obscene.

[KarlRoves3rdchin]

totally agree

[faith]

..amen to that !

[KillTheMessenger]

I rather spend another billion now than $100 trillion on a hundred years of war.

[MizLiz]

Amen to that, brother.

[PAposter]

Good point!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

$1B? Big deal. It would take another 20 such election cycles -- until 2088 -- to match what we've wasted on training Iraqi security forces.

[kellygrrrl]

word

[XME]

And paying for an Iraqi TV station that bashes Americans!

[HepsibahStarbuck]

We should put our money into another FOX for the middle-east instead?

[PAposter]

You are correct!

[MemphisBuffalo]

You mean Iraqi future terrorist training. The guys we teach and equip are leaving and waiting to join the fight against our troops. But as long as Hiliburton and Black Water are making money the push for real advancement will be just a show.

[ohmercy]

It's obscene.
I thought it was obscene when it was half this amount and I still think its obscene.

[cimwright]

Simply ridiculous. Where is that money going? Mostly to big corporations. Fleecing the American people.

[Crake]

This is going to be a short GE

[MzTexas]

And therein, lies the problem. Get MONEY out of our election process. It's the only way to get qualified, competent and experienced candidates and elected officials.