by James Oliphant
Yes, that probably does deserve an exclamation point.
According to tallies by the Campaign Finance Institute, the Center for Responsive Politics and the watchdog group Democracy 21, federal presidential and congressional candidates, the national parties, and 527 groups had raised $1.71 billion during this election cycle as of Jan. 31, 2008.
And that was before Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama put the pedal to the metal in February. For instance, Obama has raised close to $100 million since the end of January. All the presidential candidates had raised "only" about $800 million to that point.
Remember, that's all done with limits on personal contributions to presidential candidates of $2,300 per person, per year.
There are no such donor limits on giving to 527 groups, those entities regulated by the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service that produce issue ads that do not support individual candidates. According to the Campaign Finance Institute, those groups are "alive and well," even after they were more tightly regulated after the 2004 elections. (You might remember Swift Boat Veterans for Truth; John Kerry surely does.)
As of Jan. 31, 527 groups had raised $77 million during this cycle, and they are just getting going. In 2004, they raised $424 million and are ahead of that pace this time around.
The institute notes that despite the notoriety of those swift boat ads, 527s remain largely a Democratic phenomenon, with groups oriented toward supporting Democratic candidates outraising those oriented toward helping Republican ones by a 2.5 to 1 margin.
Those Democratic-leaning groups are largely fueled by labor unions and wealthy individuals, the institute says. You can read its full report here.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"REDSTATE.COM SPEAKS"
SCREW THE "FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSIONER"
HE MISPOKE AND MISSTEPPED WHEN HE SAID JOHN MCCAIN BROKE THE LAW.
JOHN MCCAIN DIDN'T TAKE PUBLIC FINANCING. HASN'T TAKEN AND IN THE FUTURE WILL PROVE HE DIDN'T TAKE PUBLIC FINANCING.
YOU "CHOOSE TO LOSE" IF YOU GO DOWN THAT PATH.
THE 58 MILLION DOLLARS IN QUESTION WASN'T PUBLIC FINANCING, IT WAS CORPORATE DONORS JUST LIKE "THAT WOMAN" AND OBAMA.
SO WHAT IF OBAMA SAYS HE DIDN'T HE DID. SO WHAT IF HILLARY CLINTON DID, OR DID NOT, JOHN MCCAIN DID AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SPENT 2-1. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE HAD 4-1 TURNOUTS UNLIKE JOHN MCCAIN.
OF COURSE HE IS TAKING BOTH PUBLIC FINANCING AND CORPORATE FINANCING. HOW ELSE CAN HE WIN REDSTATES VS BLUE STATES.
VOTES, VOTING MACHINES, POLLSTERS, OR THE LACK OF COST MONEY.
PHONE JAMMING IN AMERICA IS HARD TO DO, THERE IS A LOT OF "CHATTER ON THE INTERNET" ALSO.
SO OF COURSE WE WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN, WIN, WIN.
"THE STAKES ARE HIGH"
Posted by: Roger Morris | April 8, 2008 3:33 PM
I'm going to assume that you caught this article, but if not?
http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/2008/02/fec_impasse_threatens_to_under.php
The telling graf is here:
But the move has political consequences for McCain due to his long association with the campaign finance reform laws he co-authored with Feingold. On Monday, the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint against McCain with the FEC and blasted him for hypocrisy.
Obama, meanwhile, also faces pressure. Smith noted Obama "can be accused of using his Senate position to lock up the FEC to the detriment of his likely general election opponent."
Posted by: vbonnaire | April 9, 2008 7:49 PM