Kerry, Edwards lead 2004 Democrats in cash on hand

WASHINGTON (July 7, 2:48 p.m. ADT)

Despite a recent fund-raising surge, Howard Dean lags behind his top Democratic presidential rivals in a key category: Money in the bank. ---

Dean is the only candidate airing TV ads - $300,000 worth in Iowa - and he invested thousands of dollars to build an Internet-driven grass-roots operation. Those expenses and others, including a growing campaign staff in Burlington, Vt., leave Dean with more than $6 million cash on hand and fourth overall, aides said Monday. ---

- Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has about $11 million in the bank, including $2.6 million he transferred from his Senate campaign account. Kerry raised about $6 million in the second fund-raising quarter, second to Dean.

- Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has about $8.5 million on hand, none of it from his Senate account. He raised about $5 million this quarter, tied for third with Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

- Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri has close to $7 million in ready money, including $2.4 million from his congressional campaign account. Gephardt raised just $4.5 million in the second quarter, at least $500,000 below his goal and a disappointing fifth-place finish.

- Lieberman has about $4 million in the bank. ---

Ride Don’t Drive It’s Global Cool

Kerry is the richest man in the Senate, and that doesn't count the considerably deeper pockets of his wife, Teresa Heinz.

Edwards got $7M from his trial lawyers friends, but they all maxed out their contributions and that is all he will get.

Kucinich and Dean, to name only two of the antiwar candidates, raised their money from the grassroots, small contributors whose contributions will get matching federal funds.

I'll say that what Kerry and Edwards have in the bank, is all they'll get.

On edit:

On a related story, the FEC announces that Dean qualifies for federal matching funds. In other words, Dean just doubled his campaign funds thanks to John Q, Public:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1873&mesg_id=1873&page=

Ever see a "passionate" Edwards supporter :eyes:

Kerry Heinz doesnt have many passionate supporters, the few i see feel that way because they think he is the dems best chance..........but Dean has a Huge Fired Up base.

And I highly doubt that he's tapped out his supporters. Clinton raised lots of money, and I think everyone who gave money to Clinton is going to give to Edwards.

However, one catch: Edwards takes no PAC or lobbyist money.

not many of you, i dont think Edwards will last in the primaries, much longer than Lieberman.

I respect your choice, but i found his spineless cheer-leading in the buildup to the illegal invasion, very un-inspiring.

The rolling of the eyes is precious, really it is.

:D

What about Edward's foreign policy stance do you find worthy of support?

Hussein was bad, and the world's a better place without him, but America can't go arround being an imperial colonizer.

Edwards says that, on the Senate Foreign Relations committee he saw lots of classified info which other people haven't seen, and he bases his judgment on that. (Which comports with Clinton's feelings about Hussein which are set out in The Clinton Wars.) I also get the sense that Edwards would be pissed if that intelligence was fabricated.

you believe that?

"secret classified evidence on Iraq" ..........lol

yea the world is alot better place :eyes:

Some GOP congress people tried that spin months ago, some dems said it wasnt anything....

Edwards is * lite, dont try to equate Clinton with this shitty war...he refused to do it.

i dont see what separates Lieberman from Edwards then...

So if a neo-con war monger had a very progressive domestic agenda its ok ?

My primary interest in this campaign is that Bush loses.

Edwards can make him do that.

I find that hard to believe. Where did get his fortune? What about Corzine?

His mother is a Forbes (not that Forbes, but a wealthy one nonetheless).
Why does the perception persist that Kerry was some kind of hobo before he married Teresa? He went to Swiss boarding schools, for pete's sake, people!

I think they count Teresa's money as his--their being married and all.

Maybe because he went to Vietnam. Knowing he was a vietnam vet, I just assumed he started life as a regular Joe. I had no idea that his family had money.

goes to war and a rich kid like * goes into the Champagne Brigade of TANG using his daddy's connections. :eyes:

Kerry slept in the mansion of a wealthy socialite.

Ask Ron Kovic, a co-founder of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and author of Born on the Fourth of July, what he thinks of Kerry.

I heard that Kovic had endorsed Kucinich...

40 millionaires in US Senate
By Jeremy Johnson
7 July 2003

At least 40 of the 100 US senators are millionaires, some many times over, according to financial disclosure filings submitted last month. Republicans on the list outnumbered Democrats by a narrow margin of 22 to 18. However, Democratic senators hold the top five spots on the list and eight of the top ten, according to an analysis of the forms by CNN.

These latest financial disclosures underscore the widening gap between the average American and those who claim to represent them in government. Even those congressmen who report a relatively modest net worth are pulling down a salary of $154,700, with leadership positions paying $171,900 annually.

Heading the list is the Massachusetts Democrat and presidential candidate John Kerry, with an estimated net worth of between $164 million and $211 million. He reports holdings in 75 mutual funds, along with two held jointly with his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, heiress to the Heinz food company fortune. Assets that she owns independently, which other sources estimate at hundreds of millions more, are not required to be included.

Second on the list, at a minimum of $111 million, is Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, who sold a chain of grocery and department stores before going into politics. He currently owns the Milwaukee Bucks professional basketball team.

Next are senators John J. Rockefeller of West Virginia at $81.6 million, former Wall Street executive Jon Corzine of New Jersey at $71 million and California’s Dianne Feinstein, who is married to financier Richard Blum, at $26.3 million.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/sen-j07.shtml

First, there's nothing wrong with lawyers, they are voters too.

Next, let me point out that Dean's top donor in the first quarter was AOL/Time Warner, and 4 of his top 5 donors were corporations.
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?ID=N00025663&Cycle=2004

Also in Q1, Dean's top donating zip code was Beverly Hills.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A10279-2003May3¬Found=true

Kucinich's top donors were corporations too.
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?ID=N00003572&Cycle=2004

Is that most of their money? Of course not. But I don't know why people begrudge Edwards his lawyer donations as if its any worse than the corporate money Dean and Kucinich are raking in.

When the second quarter results come out rest assured that Dean will have, by far, the most balanced and impressively populist donor profile.

As in, take away the lawyer money and Dean will be on top.

Take away the big money donors and Dean will be on top.

Take away the lawyer and securities money and Dean will on top.

Count the number of donors and Dean will be on top.

The Q2 numbers aren't out yet, and my point was not that Dean's donors are all corporations, which I said in my post--any idiot knows they're not.

My point was that somehow, Edwards' 'lawyer friends' get guff as if they're not voting people, as if they don't count somehow.

I take issue with the whole 'look who their sponsors are' as if there is something wrong with lawyers. Especially, as I said, when you consider Dean and Kucinich's Q1 donors.

Dean had a big press push toward the end of Q2, and that was a huge benefit to him. No one else really pushed, and of course that is to their detriment and Dean's advantage. I don't begrudge him his grassroots support at all.

It is not so much about the money, but what is behind the money....cash on hand does not translate into votes..$20.00 from the guy up the street is a vote

No need to tar the source of the contributions of others using Rove propaganda clichees ("his trial lawyer friends").
I say that without particularly favoring any of the top funds candidates.