Could Money Woes Eventually Force Clinton from the Race?
Andrew Romano
UPDATE, April 5: Just a little clarification. When I wrote that "it's unlikely that Clinton raised more the $7 million" in primary funds in March, I was not reporting that she only raised that much. Instead, I was applying what I believed to be February's fundraising pattern--one-third primary funds, two-thirds general election funds--to March's overall number ($20 million) and projecting her receipts "assuming that pattern holds." As I made clear lower in the post, Clinton could've easily raised more than $7 million in primary money. That's why I wrote that "the most that she could've possibly had to spend last month was about $31 million--$11.7 in February's primary funds plus the $20 million raised in March." In fact, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson is now telling Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo that "almost all" of March's $20 million was available for the primary. But that doesn't change the larger point, which I made a sentence later: that "if Clinton spent at anything like February's rate--$1 million a day--she'd be living hand-to-mouth," and that even slower spending makes it "hard to imagine that she's doing much better than breaking even" once outstanding debts (between $8 and $14 million) are factored in.
ORIGINAL ITEM: When it comes to money and politics, looks can be deceiving. Take February's presidential fundraising receipts, for example. After losing 11 straight primary contests to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton rebounded--in the headlines, at least--with the Feb. 29 announcement that she had racked up $34.5 million in contributions for the month, her all-time record. The only problem? Candidates aren't actually required to disclose full fundraising information until the 20th of the following month. Fortunately for Clinton, not many folks took notice when she finally filed with the FEC on March 20. If they had, they would've discovered that only a third of Clinton's February cash-on-hand, $11.7 million, was designated for the primary campaign; the remaining $20-plus million was all general election funds, and would only be available if she won the Democratic nomination. What's more, they would've also learned that Clinton's campaign had closed the month with $8.7 million in outstanding debt--leaving her at the start of March with a measly $3 million in free dough for the battles ahead.
I bring this up because we've suddenly reached the end of another month (and the start of another money-maniacal news cycle)--and only by looking back at February can we see how bleak March looks for Clinton. As usual, her financial fate doesn't seem particularly dire on its face. According to the Politico's Ben Smith, a Clinton campaign source says the candidate raised about $20 million for the month--her second-best finish to date, which isn't shabby for period largely lacking in competitive primaries. But if February's tally revealed anything, it's that Clinton has been unable to expand her donor base far enough beyond the traditional networks of wealthy Democrats; the $23 million gap between primary and general election funds proved that many of these contributors had long given the $2,300 maximum donation for the primary, and were now providing an additional $2,300 for the general only to inflate Clinton's monthly total and spur positive coverage. Assuming the pattern holds, it's unlikely that Clinton raised more than $7 million that she can actually use against Obama--less, you'll notice, than last month's debt, which is probably still outstanding. (And that's not even counting the $5 million Clinton loaned her campaign at the end of January.) In any case, we won't know for sure until--you guessed it--April 20. On a conference call this morning, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson refused to confirm the $20 million figure and reminded reporters that the campaign would not release its numbers until required by law. "We will have the resources that we need to compete," said Wolfson. Not exactly a confidence booster.
The larger context here is the fate of Clinton's bid. As the pundits love to say, only two things could convince the tenacious candidate to drop out: Bill or an empty bank vault. Could the formerly inevitable Clinton actually run out of cash? At this point, it's clear, at least, that she has no chance of catching Obama in the money chase. In February, the Illinois senator racked up a record-setting $55.5 million in receipts--$54 million of which he can drop on the primary. The reason? An ever-expanding list of modest online donors; when you have 1,276,000 contributors giving an average of $100 each, there's no danger of bleeding them dry. Indeed, Obama started March with a primary fund ($31.6 million) three times the size of Clinton's, then ended the month with an additional 216,000 new donors and another $40 million in the bank; last week, he outspent Clinton five-to-one on TV advertising in upcoming primary
more at link:
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/03/could-money-woes-eventually-force-clinton-from-the-race.aspxstates.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
