But, none of the Republicans are, AFAIK, running on getting money out of politics.

is immoral and a complete waste of money that should instead be put to better use for the needy in our country, or to help rebuild and educate our country?

Do you not have a problem with the money in politics today?

I really don't understand a dem being gleeful about this at all. It's just more of the same ol' same ol'. And every year it gets worse, as more and more money is needed to compete.

And I really wish we could restrict the campaigning period the Brits do - 30 days for the UK. Our country is bigger, more ground to cover. Maybe 6 months. I can only dream.

Where is the breakdown. If contributed through a PAC then donors don't have to be revealed?
So corporate maybe?

Corporations are people too? What do you think PAC's are for

Doesn't matter any comment about where the money comes from when it comes to Hillary's campaign contributions, corporations, Wall St bankers and brokers are people too, so we then we have to classify them as grassroots.

If these were basically small donations then I'm impressed. I didn't give as much as I gave Obama. I'm waiting to see how the election shakes out. As people have pointed out, we have some very capable candidates on our side.

91% of 50,000 = 4500 over $100 (how MUCH over $100?).

If this was posted in the Hillary forum I wouldn't have posted this.

Just curious. I haven't seen any figures on the number of donors.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton's closest 2016 opponent, told CNN on Tuesday that his campaign had received around 200,000 donations, a staggering number and sign of what the Sanders' campaign is calling their grassroots funded campaign.

Clinton's campaign, by comparison, set a goal of 50,000 donations and in emails to supporters on Tuesday -- the last day of the fundraising quarter -- Clinton said they were 4,000 under their goal.

"the 50,000 donations number they repeatedly quoted in fundraising pitches for the last few days was their goal from last Friday to the close of the quarter, not their three month goal."

....bending over backward to try to paint her RECORD fundraising quarter in a negative light?

I hope I don't need to quote Jack Nicholson from "A Few Good Men"....

Also, this info came from Hillary's campaign. If she isn't waiting for the final report, why should I?

....speculation on your part - speculation with a negative twist.

Sorry.

and did not reflect the number of donations for the quarter, which is expected to exceed 100,000. Maybe by a lot.

They would have given an average of almost $9000 / person.

She says she fell short of 50,000 donors by 4,000.

So let's start with the figure of 46,000 donors.

90 percent of 46,000 donors = 41,400 donors. If they each gave a full $100, that would be a mere $4.14 million.

That means that the remaining $40,860,000 came from 10% of her donors. That's 4600 people. So on average, they gave $8882 each (close to your $9000).

The heavy money did the heaving lifting.

If 90 percent of the contributions were under $100 or less, and the goal was 50,000 contributions, then 45,000 contributions would have been $100 or less, for a total of (at most) $4.5 million. That leaves another $40.5 million to be raised from 5,000 contributions, an average of over $8000 per contribution. But under federal law, the maximum that an individual can donate during a primary campaign is $2700 and the maximum a PAC or party committee can give is $5000. It will be interesting to see what the actual figures are when the report is filed.

and thus wouldn't be part of the $45 million that the HRC campaign says it raised and wouldn't solve the math issue identified in my post.

I find the goal of 50,000 donations in the quarter to be suspiciously low -- both Carson and Sanders are reporting over 200,000 donations and back when Obama raised $40 million at the end of 2011, he had, I believe, over 120,000 donations.

The assertion that the campaign had as its goal 50K donations was not clear as to what period of time that goal covered. The assumption is that it was the entire quarter, but it could just as easily have been the last week. Also, it was a goal of 50K "grassroots" donations, in an appeal for $1 donations, so that's another ambiguity. As for the unnamed source claiming 90 percent of the donations were $100 or under -- well, we'll know whether that was true or not in two weeks.

"the 50,000 donations number they repeatedly quoted in fundraising pitches for the last few days was their goal from last Friday to the close of the quarter, not their three month goal."

It wasn't how it was originally written.

...it was there from the beginning, but easy to gloss over when one wants to find fault with the article and Hillary Clinton.

Your original post says it was updated at 11:10. But the current version as linked was updated at 8:10

And here's a version that says it was updated at 3:52 pm: http://www.wgal.com/politics/campaign-clinton-raised-over-45-million/33902614

When I first posted, it was 2:37 -- before the 3:52 update. I guarantee that the version I read did not include this paragraph: "A Clinton spokesman later said that the 50,000 donations number they repeatedly quoted in fundraising pitches for the last few days was their goal from last Friday to the close of the quarter, not their three month goal."

See the word "later" -- it wouldn't make sense to have that in there if it wasn't part of a revision of the story as originally published.

So chill out. I wasn't finding fault with HRC. Indeed, I was finding fault with the article for suggesting that the 50,000 donation number could be a "sore spot" for HRC by comparing it with Sanders' total quarter number. As I suggested -- and as the article was "later" changed to reflect -- it seemed unlikely the 50K number was a quarterly number.

Actual donations will exceed 50,000. Probably a lot.

Makes a lot more sense.

Typical bad reporting made it sound like HRC was getting only 50,000 donations while Bernie was getting over 200,000

To be fair, the announcemnet of the goal didn't make it clear that the goal,rpresented the closing phase of the campaign.

It could be that Bernie had more donors last quarter. I know some of my friends who support Hillary are waiting till the fall to start donations.

I'm an HRC supporter, but glad to see Bernie doing well too. Hopefully, that will translqte into broad sport for HRC once she secures the nomination!

May the candidate with the most money win!!! Jai ho!

Pity.