2012 Presidential Campaigns' January Fundraising And Spending (INFOGRAPHIC)

Reports about January's fundraising numbers, released on February 20, have focused on two narratives: Mitt Romney's limited fundraising and high burn rate and the role that super PACs are playing in an increasingly contested Republican primary. HuffPost decided to combine those narratives together to make a graphic of candidate and super PAC fundraising and spending in January.

Newt Gingrich and his allied super PAC, Winning Our Future, out-raised Romney and his allied super PAC, Restore Our Future, by $3.5 million in January. Gingrich was the biggest beneficiary of super PAC spending.

Romney, meanwhile, is clearly the biggest spender of all the candidates, having dropped $18.7 million in January. His super PAC added an additional $13.9 million.

Comparing the spending by Romney's allied super PAC with that of Barack Obama helps explain why the president reversed course and began encouraging super PAC donations. The Obama-allied super PAC, Priorities USA Action, raised only $58,815 in January and spent $258,025. While Obama's spending is on par with Romney's, he would have to spend much larger sums to compete against Romney and his super PAC.

Also on HuffPost:

 

 

Comments

[ethiopia1a]

08:49 AM on 02/22/2012

Give them all a shot of Sodium Pentothal before they hit the podium. Lets see who tells the most truths. LOL!

[Stefan Heisenberg]

10:29 AM on 02/22/2012

I hear even under an influence, the good doctor wouldn't change his tune.

[steve 207]

08:20 AM on 02/22/2012

This shows that Willard Mitt Romney is a big spender! He is spending money that he doesn't have at a high rate, running up a deficiet yet running as someone who would cut the deficiet! He's definately a con!

[MED1025]

08:08 AM on 02/22/2012

All of the GOP money spent tearing each other apart is money well spent - Obama/Biden 2012

[Wmof2011]

07:32 AM on 02/22/2012

Apparently, Romney and Gingrich are worth less than their Super PACs.

[Steve Rockett]

06:17 AM on 02/22/2012

In this case, rather have the votes than the money. The more super pac money, the worse the candidate looks.

[Steve Rockett]

06:12 AM on 02/22/2012

republicans ain't seen nothing yet

[exclintonsupporter]

05:52 AM on 02/22/2012

57% of GOTP are still not satisfied with their choices for President...

...I wonder why?

[exclintonsupporter]

05:51 AM on 02/22/2012

Mitt had a OOPS moment yesterday...he backed the President (can you imagine) when he said...

Cutting Spending HURTS the Economy!!!

The President and Dems have been saying this for the past 3 years...

Thank you Mitt...hope you have another one of those moments tonight...

OBAMA 2012!!!!

[steve 207]

08:25 AM on 02/22/2012

Have you noticed how quite the so called liberal press has been about this? If they were so liberal why haven't they pounced on it? If president Obama breaks wind FOX would be reporting 24/7 that Presdent Obama is the worst prseident ever and the first to ever break wind in the white house, impeach him!

[exclintonsupporter]

12:22 PM on 02/22/2012

Yes I have and that is why I keep posting it...F&F

[Vballboy60]

04:10 AM on 02/22/2012

The candidate fund raising chart says volumes.,

Nice reporting.

[Annespeaks]

03:05 AM on 02/22/2012

super pacs - arrgh! we don't know where all that money is coming from and notice how Obama's money mostly does NOT come from super Pacs....he gets my vote.

[K August]

02:17 AM on 02/22/2012

SuperPacs........ influence peddling.

[ChicagoReader]

11:11 PM on 02/21/2012

How was this even considered reporting. This was a blatant data mining of one month, which is an irrelevant time period considering the duration of the election process, to make Romney look bad and partially soften the flip-flopping of Obama on the Super PAC issue.

Sadly, based on the comment thread, I think some Obama supporters read this and thought it was a well written piece that provided useful information on Republican fund raising.

[Shozen]

06:17 AM on 02/22/2012

There's nothing, but the truth, stopping you from going out and doing the same for the entire year for all the candidates.

[ChicagoReader]

02:57 PM on 02/22/2012

There is nothing stopping me from creating garbage reporting? That was my point Shozen.

Fact, President Obama had a war chest of $745 million dollars in the 2008 election and at the time he adamantly opposed super PACs, which he has recently flip-flopped on and now fully supports and embarrasses. John McCain spend half that amount in the same election.

That was the numbers for a full election, not just a month. Obama's burn rate was twice that of his closest competitors. This is your HOPE. Obama spends twice as much as anyone else; what waste. That is your news worthy burn rate. Truth hurts doesn't it.

Subsequently, I am sure your reporter, Paul, could find a week that Obama was not golfing in Hawaii or snorting cocaine, and his burn rate (spending rate) would look incredible for that one week. Of course, you would have to exclude the president's tobacco budget.

[cat lover and liberal]

10:31 PM on 02/21/2012

Wow, that's a lot of Super Pac action from the Republicans.

[Steve Rockett]

06:14 AM on 02/22/2012

anonymous snakes

[dad4lifesl]

10:16 PM on 02/21/2012

So the point of this article is...?

[Breth]

10:40 PM on 02/21/2012

...over your head?

[dad4lifesl]

10:44 PM on 02/21/2012

It could be... or more than likely more attempts by the left to make something out of nothing.

[OneEarthling]

11:12 PM on 02/21/2012

It's a fact based news report... you know... data.
No point required.

[dad4lifesl]

11:33 PM on 02/21/2012

Raw data does not make a news story, there still must be a reason it is newsworthy.

[labman57]

09:56 PM on 02/21/2012

Cost of financing Romney's corporate oligarchy campaign -- $25 million
Cost of financing Gingrich's white supremacist campaign -- $15 million
Cost of financing Santorum's Christian theocracy campaign -- $12 million

Watching Obama clean the GOP's collective clocks in November? Priceless.