iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

The Richest Presidential Candidates Of The Last 20 Years: Wealth-X

The Huffington Post     First Posted: 01/11/12 11:43 AM ET   Updated: 01/11/12 12:04 PM ET

Regardless of whether Mitt Romney eventually secures the presidency this year, he's already cemented his place in recent election history.

The former Massachusetts governor, currently on his second campaign for president, is now the third wealthiest person to have run for presidential office since the 1992 elections, according to a new report by Wealth-X. Republican candidates Jon Hunstman and Gary Johnson come in at eighth and twelfth, respectively, on the list. It's Romney, however, whose current estimated worth of $250 million puts him among the 3,140 richest people in the nation -- a group that comprises the richest 0.001 percent of Americans.

But Romney's wealth pales in comparison to the wealthiest person to have likely aspired to the highest office in the last two decades. That honor goes to Ross Perot, now worth an estimated $3.58 billion and campaigned as an Independent in both 1992 and 1996, according to Wealth-X.

According to David S. Friedman, executive vice president at Wealth-X, the data provides a "deep insight into how and why individuals have been able to amass this level of wealth," especially in the context of campaign finance. Romney's time as CEO of Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm, not only allowed him to amass a fortune of his own, but also allowed for increased contributions to his campaign. The pro-Romney Super PAC Restore Our Future raised $12 million in the first half of 2011, large portions of which came from people associated with Bain.

Jon Huntsman's wealth too may spring primarily from corporate America, with the former Ambassador to China serving as CEO of chemical company Huntsman Corporation before entering politics.

But presidential candidates aren't the only politicians netting the big bucks. In fact, lawmakers working in the House and Senate had a combined net worth of $2.04 billion in 2010, up from $1.65 billion in 2008, according to an analysis by Roll Call.

Taking an even longer look back, it's clear that America's representatives have been on the winning side of income inequality in recent decades. The median income of members of the House Representatives more than doubled between 1984 and 2009, the Washington Post reports. Over that same period, the median income for U.S. families actually fell to $20,500 from $20,600, according to a study by the University of Michigan.

Here are the wealthiest people to have run for president in the last two decades:

Loading Slideshow...
  • 10. John Edwards

    <strong>Minimum current estimated net worth:</strong> $45 million <strong>Election years:</strong> 2004 and 2008 <strong>Party:</strong> Democratic

  • 9. Rudy Giuliani

    <strong>Minimum current estimated net worth:</strong> $65 million <strong>Election year:</strong> 2008 <strong>Party:</strong> Republican

  • 8. Jon Huntsman

    <strong>Minimum current estimated net worth:</strong> $70 million <strong>Election year:</strong> 2012 <strong>Party:</strong> Republican

  • 7. Hillary Clinton

    <strong>Minimum current estimated net worth:</strong> $85 million <strong>Election year:</strong> 2008 <strong>Party:</strong> Democratic

  • 6. Bill Clinton

    <strong>Minimum current estimated net worth:</strong> $85 million <strong>Election years:</strong> 1992 and 1996 (President 1993-2001) <strong>Party:</strong> Democratic

  • 5. Al Gore

    <strong>Minimum current estimated net worth:</strong> $100 million <strong>Election year:</strong> 2000 <strong>Party:</strong> Democratic

  • 4. John Kerry

    <strong>Minimum current estimated net worth:</strong> $240 million <strong>Election year:</strong> 2004 <strong>Party:</strong> Democratic

  • 3. Mitt Romney

    <strong>Minimum current estimated net worth:</strong> $250 million <strong>Election years:</strong> 2008 and 2012 <strong>Party:</strong> Republican

  • 2. Steve Forbes

    <strong>Minimum current estimated net worth:</strong> $450 million <strong>Election years:</strong> 1996 and 2000 <strong>Party:</strong> Republican

  • 1. Ross Perot

    <strong>Minimum current estimated net worth:</strong> $3.58 billion <strong>Election years:</strong> 1992 and 1996 <strong>Party:</strong> Independent

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
Regardless of whether Mitt Romney eventually secures the presidency this year, he's already cemented his place in recent election history. The former Massachusetts governor, currently on his secon...
Regardless of whether Mitt Romney eventually secures the presidency this year, he's already cemented his place in recent election history. The former Massachusetts governor, currently on his secon...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 973
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (23 total)
johns123123
To Be Or Not To Be...That IS The Answer
07:16 PM on 01/20/2012
Just like the Ancient Roman Republic, it pays to be in politics.
10:52 PM on 01/15/2012
"I never had any money until I got out of the White House, you know, but I've done reasonably well since then." William J. Clinton.
photo
charlesa1946
peacefromlove
09:24 AM on 01/14/2012
Senator Edwards problem, poverty stricken judgment and mentality, morality. In the words of Mr. T, pity the poor fool. Pray for him.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
acatlett6
07:16 PM on 01/13/2012
thehill.com list is more accurate.
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
03:17 PM on 01/13/2012
al gores new religion has been highly profitable since leaving office....wow
10:41 AM on 01/25/2012
capitalized handsomely on his connections. Not crazy about him.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
emphatico
....is politically radioactive.
06:20 PM on 11/11/2012
Al Gore OWNS a media network. That's where his money comes from.
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
10:14 PM on 11/11/2012
not hardly....it hasnt been that profitable. 
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
11:29 AM on 01/13/2012
What's funny is the only one I'd tend to trust outright is the richest of them all.
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
03:16 PM on 01/13/2012
i agree....he is a pretty good fellow...rumor is that he has bin ladens cane in dallas that special forces gave to him years ago.
10:41 AM on 01/13/2012
I wonder how much of John Kerry's estimated fortune was really Teresa Heinz' inheritance (which she didn't have direct control of, anyway). I remember that of the Kerry-Edwards ticket, back in 2004, John and Elizabeth Edwards' liquid assets were actually greater than the Senator and Teresa's.
10:49 PM on 01/15/2012
Teresa Heinz married into the Heinz money.
06:27 AM on 01/13/2012
Making a fortune giving speeches is nothing more than concealed bribery!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wardropper
New empty micro-bio
10:49 AM on 01/13/2012
Not even concealed.

Their shamelessness is complete.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:39 AM on 01/15/2012
You make an important point very well.

It is alarming to see the number of Wall Street banks and other profiteering corporations, for example, that have rewarded Bill Clinton for the repeal of Glass-Stegall economic protections with huge speaking and consulting fees (wink wink). The Washington Post compiled a list: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2007/clinton-speeches/list/
03:06 AM on 01/13/2012
Romney-"a group that comprises the richest 0.001 percent of Americans"

And this is who we want to represent the Republican party? I'm sure he really knows what its like to live paycheck-to-paycheck and to choose whether you want to eat lunch or dinner today. Yikes...
06:25 AM on 01/13/2012
Since when dont experience count...Romney v Obama, no contest!
10:49 AM on 01/13/2012
Right. Obama will have occupied the White House for four years by the end of 2012. That's experience a person can't buy. Vote for the one with the experience.

No contest.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sobaytransplant
Obama WINS - just as we knew he would.
04:57 PM on 01/13/2012
Experience DOES count. Obama has experience as the President of the United States, Romney has none. (Governor of ONE state isn't the same as President of FIFTY states.) Obama has experience firsthand with what life is like for the average person, Romney does not.

Now if the United States actually WERE a corporation (which it ISN'T) then Romney might be able to say he has more experience. Romney has experience breaking up failing corporations in order to turn a profit for investors (and HIMSELF,) while sending hundreds of thousands of American workers to the unemployment lines in the process. Obama does NOT.

You're right... there IS no contest.
oilfield
large employer per obamacare
03:17 PM on 01/13/2012
clinton too....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nappyman
Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil
07:13 PM on 01/12/2012
List should show what they were worth when they ran. I highly doubt Clinton and Gore were worth that much. Obviously Obama's worth will go to tens of millions after he is out of office. You gonna then add him to the list?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sobaytransplant
Obama WINS - just as we knew he would.
04:04 PM on 01/13/2012
Why would they add Obama after he is out of office? I believe the title of the story was Presidential CANDIDATES, which implies they had the money BEFORE they ran. After serving 8 years as President, Obama definitely won't be a candidate.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbdel
My micro-bio is empty because I'm larger than life
07:52 PM on 01/13/2012
Read the information: current net worth (not their net worth while they were running).

nappyman has it right: what was the net worth of each person before seeking the presidency? (Then notice how some of them have become fabulously wealthy because of their political and economic connections.)
PROGRESSISGOOD
Without Economic Justice, There Is No Justice!
06:54 PM on 01/12/2012
As you can see from this list, the political leanings of these people are all over the board. Whether someone has a lot of money is not the issue in today's economy. The issue is what does one believe about how the wealth created by American Capitalism should be distributed.

Repubicans believe it all should go to the investors who risked their spare cash. Progressives believe that the people who contributed their blood, sweat and tears also deserve to be rewarded by our American Capitalism. Progressives believe that our government must re-distribute our countries wealth in order to keep our economy growing.

When too much wealth ends up in the hands of too few people our economy slowly but surely dies. We are not on our death bed yet; but, we are heading for intensive care.

The protest against the 1% is not a protest against wealth or the wealthy, it is a protest against a corrupt system that disproportionately rewards the investors at the expense of the workers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kaki40
Independent
09:58 PM on 01/12/2012
The issue is what does one believe about how the wealth created by American Capitalism should be distribute­d....

Really? you know what that is called? socialism...If you want wealth then get off your couch and earn it!!!..I am not even saying that our politicians are not corrupt they are..all of them..But for you for one moment to think that those that earn should have to pay for those who do not, is ridiculouss!!
10:55 AM on 01/13/2012
Except the issue isn't that one side wants to take ALL of the money from the wealthy and those wealthy people are victims of a socialist conspiracy. That's hyperbole. The issue is more between naked unfettered capitalism and regulated sensible capitalism. That 3%-4% increase in taxes the "left" talks about isn't going to make a dent in the wealth of anyone and you all know it! Very, very few are asking for a free handout.
11:27 AM on 01/13/2012
That's a pretty simple definition of socialism. redistribution of wealth = socialism. Logically, if that's true then all government on earth is socialist by nature, and the only non-socialist rule would be anarchy.

I personally think paying the gov. to do certain services is a good thing, and that the ones who benefit the more from said services should pay more.
11:50 PM on 01/12/2012
The problem with progressive thought is that they think there is some limited quantity of wealth in the world and if "rich" people have a bunch it means others must have less. The ultimate "the glass is half empty" train of thought. Saying the "rich" are the problem is no different than saying "blacks are lazy" or "blonds are dumb" or 'girls can't do math". When you stereotype, you show depth of your thinking...................shallow.
10:57 AM on 01/13/2012
And you, sir, are stereotyping the views of the progressives incorrectly..... weak.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sobaytransplant
Obama WINS - just as we knew he would.
04:36 PM on 01/13/2012
I always find it quite amusing when a conservative tries to tell progressives what we think. What you know about progressive thought comes from conservative sources who have adapted our philosophies to make them say what THEY choose for them to say. (cough* cough* FOXNEWS cough* cough) However, when you hear it from the horse's mouth, you tell us, "NO, that's not what you think!" It's like questioning our ability to correct pronounce our own names, since you've already heard them pronounced differently elsewhere.

For the record, progressives do NOT as a group believe that wealth in this world is limited, that anyone else has to GIVE us part of their share (other than paying an appropriate income-based tax rate,) or that the "glass is half empty." On the contrary, we KNOW there is plenty of wealth in this world for everyone and the glass is actually FULL to the brim. Our beef with the wealthy is that they have spent a very long time drinking from that glass, have drank (drunk?) their personal share several times over and yet they STILL refuse to put it down so that everyone ELSE can have a drink, too. That isn't what we THINK - it's OBSERVATION.

Let me put it another way... we think of the ultra-wealthy as the 400 lb.man at the buffet table stuffing sandwiches into his pockets until they are bulging... leaving only CRUMBS for those who come through the line behind him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
starrianna
A strong black woman with style and substance.
06:33 PM on 01/12/2012
The Clintons weren't worth anywhere near what they're worth now when Bill was running for President. Same with Al Gore.
07:29 AM on 01/13/2012
Which is a bigger problem than someone running when they are already rich.

I trust the rich person more than someone looking to get rich off of favors...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sobaytransplant
Obama WINS - just as we knew he would.
04:41 PM on 01/13/2012
Yeah, we thought that about Schwarzenegger here in California, too. ESPECIALLY since he called it to our attention that he was already rich and didn't need to bow to "special interests." Do I need to tell anyone how that turned out for us?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
starrianna
A strong black woman with style and substance.
08:20 PM on 01/17/2012
That makes total sense! Because, when we get rich, we become perfect.

Just ask Jesus.
photo
sindurrella
now where did I put my bootstraps?
03:22 PM on 01/12/2012
Romeny = R (for Republican) + M-O-N-E-Y (not necessarily in that order)
02:15 PM on 01/12/2012
I question the accuracy of the article. Al Gore is worth more and should be a lot higher on the list as should John Kerry
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:27 AM on 01/12/2012
It is not really accurate to list Bill Clinton among the wealthiest presidential candidates based on his current fortune. He was not rich as candidate or president, but rather cashed in when he left office taking huge "speaking and consulting" fees from grateful and greedy corporations who helped put him in power and whom he had served so well while in office (think free trade and Glass-Stegall repeal).

According the Los Angeles Times, the Clintons' income went from $358,000 in 2000 to $16.5 million a year later, and totaled $109 million by 2008. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/05/nation/na-taxes5

So Hillary Clinton was one of the all time wealthiest candidates. Also of note is the fact that she contributed ("loaned" and then forgave) at least $13 million to her campaign from her personal fortune. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/us/politics/23clintons.html

In addition, it is significant, that the biggest protion of the Clinton fortune has come from ongoing, huge "speaking and consulting fees" paid to Clinton by corporations and other international entities. It constituted a highly questionable form of campaign financing, that "effectively bypassed campaign finance reform ... using Bill Clinton effectively as a front for the fundraising" that was neither regulated nor adequately monitored. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/05/08/36441/clintons-campaign-loans-raise.html#storylink=cpy

The question remains: was this a form of money laundering?