Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

It's official. Obama reported $34 million in cash on hand to Clinton's $33 million --- meaning that Obama has managed to erase Clinton's lead of $10 million that she transferred from her Senate campaign account in the first quarter. Associated Press:
John Edwards, the Democrat closest to the two fundraising leaders, reported having $12 million in the bank for the primary.

Obama, the freshman senator from Illinois, has mounted an aggressive fundraising campaign that has netted him more than 250,000 donors for the year. Overall, he has raised nearly $59 million, with all but about $2 million devoted to the primary election.

Obama reported $922,000 of debt at the end of the quarter and $16 million in spending for the quarter.

The Clinton campaign said it had spent $12.5 million.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/07/15/AR2007071500465_ 2.html?hpid=topnews
What does this mean? Some analysis from Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post back on July 2nd:
Obama is now moving into a position to dictate the terms of the rate and depth of spending in the caucuses and primaries. All of the other candidates -- including Clinton -- will have to watch and see what Obama's spending strategy is over the coming months. Obama will have the resources to run Rolls Royce campaigns in each of the first four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- and build the sort of organizations in places like Florida, Michigan and California to capitalize on any early momentum he gathers.

The only other candidate who will be able to come close to matching Obama in that process is Clinton. Will she be able to do everything Obama does organizationally and on television? Amazingly, maybe not. But she is the only candidate who can even come close.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/07/money_money_everywhere_1.html

All the campaigns are turning in their final campaign finance reports for the second quarter...

Update [2007-7-15 22:5:49 by psericks]: The Associated Press has a full run-down here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAMPAIGN_MONEY_GLANCE?SITE=MIDTN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
OBAMA
Total receipts to date (includes contributions for primary and general elections, loans and transfers): $36.3 million (about $2 million for general election)
Total contributions to date: $58.6 million
Total spending to date: $22.6 million
Second quarter contributions: $32.9 million
Second quarter spending: $16 million
Second quarter transfers or loans: none
Cash on hand: $36.3 million
Debt: none
Top donor states: California, $4.2 million; Illinois, $3.3 million; New York, $3.1 million; District of Columbia, $1.1 million; Massachusetts, $1 million.
Top employers: Employees of Lehman Brothers, $160,760; Citadel Investment Group, $152,150; Goldman Sachs, $103,550; JP Morgan Chase, $101,950; Citigroup $61,125.
Of note: Obama gets much notice for attracting first-time donors. But the real money is coming from big investment firms. The Illinois senator is a favorite among employees of some of the nation's largest investment banks and hedge funds. Among his fans is Kenneth C. Griffin, president of Chicago-based hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. Griffin gave Obama $4,600 this quarter, the maximum allowed.


EDWARDS
Total receipts to date (includes contributions for primary and general elections, loans and transfers): $23.1 million ($1.3 million for general election)
Total contributions to date: $23.1 million
Total spending to date: $9.7 million
Second quarter contributions: $9.0 million
Second quarter spending: $6.4 million
Second quarter transfers or loans: none
Cash on hand: $13.3 million
Debt: none
Top donor states: California, $1.3 million; New York, $543,185; Florida, $506,072; North Carolina, $504,283; Texas, $486,908.
Top employers: Fortress Investments, $122,650; Lerach Coughlin, $53,300; Watts Law Firm, $48,400; Goldman Sachs, $43,100.
Of note: The Edwards campaign finished the second quarter with about $2.6 million more in the bank than when it started, despite a $5 million drop-off in contributions from the previous quarter.
Edwards, a former trial lawyer, continues to do well raising money from his own. He raised just under $2 million from fellow attorneys in the quarter.


Update [2007-7-15 22:49:39 by psericks]:
Republicans are having a pretty extraordinary cash-on-hand problem. McCain's campaign imploded due to its lack of funds and reported only $2 million on hand.
Romney would be in much the same position with only $3 million on hand were it not for the $9 million in funds he has himself personally loaned to his campaign --- listed on his campaign filing as "debt." In other words, as the Washington Post notes, Romney spent 50% more than he raised during the first two quarters. Democrats could end up with a truly incredible advantage.

GIULIANI
Total receipts to date: (includes contributions for primary and general elections, loans and transfers) $35.6 million ($3.7 million for general election)
Total contributions to date: $33.5 million ($3.7 million for general election)
Total spending to date: $17 million
Second quarter contributions: $17.5 million
Second quarter spending: $11 million
Second quarter transfers or loans: none
Cash on hand: $18.3 million ($3.7 million for general election)
Debt: none
Top donor states: New York, $4 million; California, $1.7 million; Florida $1.7 million.
Top employers: Ernst & Young, where employees gave $143,000; Highland Capital Management, whose employees gave $70,000; New Breed Inc., a Greensboro, N.C., logistics and distribution company whose employees gave $66,000.
Of note: Giuliani raised twice as much money in Florida in the second quarter than he did in the first quarter, making the state his second largest benefactor, behind New York. Giuliani has spent considerable time in Florida, a state that moved up its primary to Jan. 29, increasing its significance politically as well as financially for candidates.

---

ROMNEY
Total receipts to date: (includes contributions, loans and transfers: $44.4 million
Total contributions to date: $35 million
Total spending to date: $31.8 million
Second quarter contributions: $14 million
Second quarter spending: $20.5 million
Second quarter transfers or loans: $6.5 million personal loan from candidate
Cash on hand: $12.1 million
Debt: $8.94 million
Top donor states: California, $1.95 million; Utah, $1.14 million; Florida, $963,566.
Top employers: Merrill Lynch, whose employees gave $62,000; E-Trade Financial, whose employees gave $51,000; Energy Solutions, a Utah-based nuclear services company whose employees gave $36,400.
Of note: Romney spent virtually all of his second-quarter revenues, including his contributions and his personal loan. His biggest expense was $4.9 million on media for television advertising, more than twice what he spent in the first three months of the year.


Update [2007-7-16 6:22:3 by psericks]: Great quote from the Associated Press:
Democrats outraised Republicans about $80 million to $50 million from April through June. But Republicans kept pace with Democrats on spending - nearly $50 million spent on both sides.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAMPAIGN_MONEY?SITE=VTBEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Update [2007-7-15 22:33:57 by psericks]: Unrelated substantive update: Obama touches on gun control to fight inner-city violence. It takes some guts to bring this up.
Nearly three dozen Chicago students have been killed this year, according to Chicago Public Schools. Obama said that figure is higher than the number of Illinois serviceman who've died in Iraq in 2007...
He said the government needs to permanently reinstate an assault weapons ban and close regulatory loopholes that protect unscrupulous gun dealers.
He also said government should support and fund more after-school programs to keep kids off the streets. But some of the burden must also be shouldered by residents who need to do more to raise and protect at-risk children, he added.

Tags: clinton, Fundraising, obama (all tags)

Comments

43 Comments

One million more?

seems like you are overstating your point just as Ciliza does

by okamichan13 2007-07-15 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: One million more?
The point is not that Obama has opened up a huge lead, he hasn't, the point is that he has eliminated Clinton's huge $10 million head-start from her Senate campaign.
The fact that anyone at all could have more cash on hand than a Clinton is a pretty remarkable accomplishment. This campaign filings make it official.
by psericks 2007-07-15 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: One million more?

Exactly...She had $10 million head start and for Obama to completly wipe out her huge advantage,is huge...Let's remember that Bill Clinton is fundraising behind the scene for her and she still couldn't hold her fundraising advantage.

by JaeHood 2007-07-15 06:37PM | 0 recs
Yeah I didn't mean to knock it

it does matter, just don't think we really know much yet. I thought your diary on #s of donors raises a more interesing point - the strong hints at her lack of broad support especially among regular folks.

by okamichan13 2007-07-16 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: One million more?
Cillizza adds a great many qualifiers as to why he thinks Clinton is still the front-runner for the nomination. His post was titled: "Obama's Haul Doesn't Make Him the Frontrunner ... Yet"
It's worth a read.
by psericks 2007-07-15 06:13PM | 0 recs
I read it and agree...

by icebergslim 2007-07-15 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: One million more?

Right Now, it doesn't make much of a difference.  If Obama's fundraising continues in Q3 the way it was in Q2 and Clinton's matches hers, then he could obtain a bigger lead giving him the ability to flood the airwaves in the early states.  The point of Ciliza is WHAT this could represent as we continue into Q3 and Q4.  

Of course, if the money can't help to narrow the gap in the polls then it doesn't make a difference of course.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-15 06:57PM | 0 recs
run rate

This is the point where the campaign's run-rates become clear. Obama's Q2 spending is 28% higher than Clinton's (16 compared to 12.5 million), he spent about 30% more than Clinton in Q1. He will have to start controlling costs if he wants to stay competitive. Especially given the gap he must overcome in the polls.

by souvarine 2007-07-15 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: run rate

We don't know all the numbers, but at this rate, for them to have the same amount cash on hand, and I mean for the primaries, because that has not been OFFICIAL totally either.  Anyway, HRC has 36M Q1.  I would say they both are about even in the spending.  And this man came from NOTHING to being formidable, you can't hate on that one.  HRC need to get to these bean & frank ralleys and get her coffers together.  Because Obama got the internet monies burnin' up on his site.  For real.

by icebergslim 2007-07-15 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: run rate

It's not just spending money to make money too.  Camp Obama is a lot of transportation to build a strong grassroots base.  That is meant to translate votes, although it could translate into more money too.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-15 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: run rate
This is to some extent true, though like Romney on the Republican side, Obama's status as a lesser-known candidate than Edwards or Clinton means that he needs to spend more to be better known.
Obama proves with this report that even though he is spending more than Clinton, he still maintains the cash on hand advantage. Given his huge base of donors, he will probably have the ability to spend more than Clinton.
The fact that the campaign has banked so much money shows that they are showing restraint. This isn't McCain burning through his last $2 million.
by psericks 2007-07-15 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: run rate

Good observation, they have banked that money and have shown incredible restraint.  You got to give the Obama team that, even while fundraising, the same thing, great restraint.

by icebergslim 2007-07-15 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: run rate
As for stats to back up that Obama is the lesser-known candidate and has room to grow, jacortina has a great post here on one of Jerome's threads with some name recognition polls:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/8/35316 /60603
Gallup Poll: (May 24th)
Clinton - 98%
Edwards - 81%
Obama - 75%
Pew Research Center: (June 2007)
Clinton - 99%
Edwards - 87%
Obama - 85%
by psericks 2007-07-15 06:24PM | 0 recs
Several good reasons...

1)  Clinton has a national infrastructure and support from the Clinton White House years that she's been cultivating for years.  Obama's had to build his from scratch.  In 5 months.  Hardly a minor expense.

2)  Until the middle of May, Obama had to pay all his own Security costs (and it's not cheap).  Clinton has had Secret Service protection the whole time because of her status as former first lady.  This should even out going forward.

by rashomon 2007-07-15 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Several good reasons...
Another point is that Obama has been staging enormous rallies. This is great, but they tend to cost a lot more.
Renting those enormous venues, plentiful sound equipment, etc, must really cost something.
by psericks 2007-07-15 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Several good reasons...

Yes, but he has also piggy backed those with high end fundraisers.  You got to give it to him, he is doing it with the money.  Period.  I remember, when folk thought it was crazy to charge 25.00 for a kickoff, now all of them are trying to do it.  Why?  You can add the name to your database and to the number of donors, it adds strength to your campaign.  HRC, need to get on it.

by icebergslim 2007-07-15 06:51PM | 0 recs
Cash on hand

Without Hillary's $10M transfer from 2006, we would be looking at $23M cash on hand for her campaign. For Obama to be even close to Hillary's COH figure this early is remarkable given the Clintons huge network of longstanding establishment support.

by rosebowl 2007-07-15 06:11PM | 0 recs
You have to give it up to Obama,

Hillary Clinton was the inevitable candidate, and tried to scare folk into oblivion with her 36M.  Now, he has caught up and surpassed her, and is still making money.  HRC better get with the program and get her "likeability" together, and get on those beans & franks kickoffs, chargin folk $20 bucks, because it adds up.  And she can get some email and mailing info.  That 250K rolodex is history.  It is a new playing field.  Notice on Obama's website, National Camps all over the country?  HRC get your ground game together.

by icebergslim 2007-07-15 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: You have to give it up to Obama,

HRC better get with the program and...get on those beans & franks kickoffs....

"Frank"-ly, I'll be very happy if Clinton cops none of Obama's "ground game."

by horizonr 2007-07-15 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: You have to give it up to Obama,

I'm still undecided, but doesn't Clinton have a pretty damn good ground game already?

by Leviathan 2007-07-15 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: You have to give it up to Obama,

"Ground Game" as in she has infrastructure.  Connections all over, yes.  "Ground Game" as in enthusiastic people taking time out of their day to go to parades, carnivals, etc. and create visibility, not so much.  Depends on how we're interpretting it.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-15 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

Oh boy .. there are going to be a lot of bitching diaries opening up here once Hillary wins the nomination.  I hope I'm not too busy celebrating to come by and read them.

The truth is, Obama has plateaued.  We are past the halfway mark of the primary campaign season and Obama hasn't moved closer to Hillary anywhere.

That's the way it is with honeymoons.  They don't last very long.  

And what about all the cash Obama has plowed through?  I almost fell off my chair when I read those numbers.

by Regan 2007-07-15 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

He's been busing people for canvases and to come to Camp Obama to train canvassers.  They've been doing a lot of work, opening offices all over Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-15 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

You may not think much of this, but he's building up a force to use just before the caucuses and primaries.  A more trained and professional force than Hillary will have since she isn't training canvassers.

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-15 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

I agree, it is a great accomplishment for Obama and he truly deserves to be applauded for it.  But I would still say Hillary edges him out because she gets loads of free press that the others don't get-  Bill alone will get a mountain of press when his book comes out- so although Obama has more money- she gets freebies that amount to a lot of money.

by reasonwarrior 2007-07-15 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

I wonder if Plouffe and Axelrod have made their first million yet?

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-15 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

Pretty sure Mark Penn has.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-15 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

I think you may be close, but at least it's not on commission, and Clinton I believe has her media consultant Grunwald on retainer.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-15 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

Yeah.  So are you complaining about how much money they have made or how they made it?  Because it seems as though your statements could be seen as hypocritical depending on why you decided to throw the jabs in.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-07-15 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

Isn't that a little unprofessional? I don't know if this site is your job or just a hobby, but still...cheap shots are unbecoming.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-15 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

Unprofessional? To call out a media consultant that's pulling in commissions and that's his partner as the campaign manager?  

Wow, you have got to be kidding.  

Cheap shot?  ha ha, cause if Axelrod & Plouffe are working on commission, get used to the incoming.

Go read Gravy Train for some decent background here.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-15 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

No man, I just thought a was a bit cheap to bring this up in a diary that has nothing to do with that, really. I just mean, it's your site...of all the dozens of diaries to comment on, why bring this up here?

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-15 10:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

Of course, they are getting paid and handily.  Who does anything for a wish and prayer these days?  As Penn is getting paid handsomely, too.  Over 400K is his debt from Hillary, thus far.

by icebergslim 2007-07-16 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

I've stopped getting on Jerome about his anti-Obama comments, it's obvious to anyone who cares why and where it's coming from, I just hope he supports him strongly when he becomes the nominee.

by nevadadem 2007-07-15 10:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

It's now considered "anti-Obama" to not support media consultants taking 15% commissions?

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-15 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

why don't we take a look at how every campaign pays thier media consultants and ad men ect.... and compare it too how the 2004 candidates paid for ads and other services...Obama's no idiot, this is how he feels he is going to be able to win the nomination and the presidency, so far it's working big time so I don't think his donors (I'm a pretty big one) care too much about the inside baseball stuff of how the money is spent. The campaign isn't a charity,people will make money by working on it and if they fail like McCain they won't, if Obama thought he was paying too much for Ploufe ect... he would do something about it as all donors to a campaign want is for the guy they support to win, I don't care if Axelrod makes money in the process.

by nevadadem 2007-07-15 10:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

Some people haven't read the book.

by Michael Bersin 2007-07-16 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

I hope so, they are running a terrific campaign and doing thier best to save our party from nominating a candidate who would take slam-dunk election and turn in into a 50/50 personality contest.  The fact that scores of people are giving to Obama instead of Hillary shows where the "interested" dem voters are at and it isn't with the Clinton's the media propelled polls of mostly un-interested and lower information voters aren't as significant as the amount of donors at this point.

by nevadadem 2007-07-15 10:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

Tell yourself that Clinton has mostly un-interested and lower information supporters if it makes you sleep better.   Just brace for a harder waking-up in the end.  

by georgep 2007-07-16 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

The gun control comments are right on, especially because Obama has been in those neighborhoods and seen the issue up close.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-15 10:08PM | 0 recs
He'll need every dime

But hey at least he is leading something for a change.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-16 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

Obama NEEDS to spend more. Right now, what he's doing isn't working. he's falling further behind. Yes, he's got more dough, but he needs to spend more of it than Clinton does.

by Mayor McCheese 2007-07-16 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama leads Clinton in Cash on Hand

The next round of Iowa polls should be interesting.   Obama has run ads in Iowa already, so we'll see if that translated into a #1 showing in that state.  Frankly, I have major doubts that he'll place (in the aggregate) better than third in the most recent polling numbers.  

by georgep 2007-07-16 05:56AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------