So how much had each of the losing campaigns raised by the end of last year?
The Losing Republicans:
Samuel Brownback $4,374,081
John Cox $617,338
Duncan Hunter $2,496,084
Rudy Giuliani $60,238,856
Mitt Romney $90,076,401
Thomas Tancredo $8,247,396
Fred Thompson $21,812,644
Tommy Thompson $1,225,628
Total: $189,088,428
The Losing Democrats:
Joseph Biden $11,405,784
Dennis Kucinich $3,863,174
Christopher Dodd $16,547,014
John Edwards $44,259,014
Bill Richardson $23,671,029
Thomas Vilsack $1,038,046
Total: $100,784,061
But how much of that money did the candidates actually spend? FEC regulations all surplus campaign funding can be put to a number of uses. For example, left over funds can be donated to charity, to a party committee, or to other candidates seeking federal offices, according to the FEC's Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees (the rules outlined in this guide apply to any campaign for federal office, not just Congressional campaigns, according to the FEC).
The Losing Republicans:
Samual Brownback: Spent $4,368,756
John Cox: Spent $652,621
Rudy Giuliani: Spent $48,476,576
Duncan Hunter: Spent $2,299,489
Mitt Romney: Spent $87,644,953
Thomas Tancredo: Spent $5,936,396
Fred Thomspon: Spent $19,672,377
Tommy Thompson: $1,223,565
Total Spending: $170,274,733
The Losing Democrats:
Joe Biden: Spent $9,538,686
Chris Dodd: Spent $14,057,453
John Edwards: Spent $36,468,927
Dennis Kucinich: Spent $3,614,515
Bill Richardson: Spent $21,857,564
Thomas Vilsack: Spent $1,223,565
Total Spending: $86,760,710
Altogether the losing Democratic and Republican candidates spent $257,035,443 on their campaigns by the end of 2007. It is likely that any remaining campaign funds were spent after December 31, 2007. In addition, many of the campaign had also incurred significant levels of debt. Any remaining campaign funds would have to go towards repaying that debt.
What do you think about the amount of money being spent on the losing presidential campaigns this election cycle?
Was this money wasted, or did these campaigns acheive something?
If you contributed money to a losing campaign do you think your money was well spent?
How could the election system be reformed so that less money would be spent? Should the system be reformed?
Sources: Federal Elections Commission.
David Anderson is a political correspondent for Gather.com. You can read all of David's past correspondent articles by clicking here
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
Does this seem unreal? This way everyone in the race would have equal time on the air.
Did anybody ask themselves what all this money is spent on? Seems to me that the communications industry (Rupert Murdoch?) are the beneficiaries of tons of this free speech.
I agree totally with Modern on this. The campaign is ridiculously long. My question ot him is okay, now what do you propose to do about it. He wouldn't like my ideas on that! As far as the dollars spent, that, in no way surprises me, it's par for the course. Shorter campaigns would reduce that to some extent.
And how on earth will the voters not have to count on the media? You may have met some candidates but only one, Obama, came to Idaho and surely didn't have time to set down and explains his positions to each Idahoan! TV and news print are still how most candidates reach the public.
The media has added to that problem, and creates more trouble by their actions and their insistance on calling the results prematurely
Take all that money and add to it the fact that most of our votes will never be truly counted (the electoral college!!!) and you have the very reason that campaigns are designed to keep only the wealthy in office, deciding how the rest of us should live, spending OUR money on THEIR whims, and taking ever larger amounts to do so.
The only way that this country will ever level the playing field, and allow someone who is just as qualified but not born with a silver spoon, is to remove the campaign funding as it now stands. Set a specific dollar amount for each party, and each candidate and NONE are to be allowed to spend over that. Personal funds are not to be added to bolster their coffers. Corporate funds can only be accepted if divided amongst ALL candidates EQUALLY. That would also remove the need for corporate favors later on.
Since the media insists on being partisan and makes a fortune off of these campaigns by running the adds that they do, then ALL media should be required to give EQUAL time to each and every candidate, for a predetermined amount coming from the campaign fund. (Just as Mary Bradley stated above too). Free speech is OUR right!!! Campaign funding for media coverage CANNOT be categorized under free speech, it is bought and PAID for.
Of course none of this would ever happen. First because the wealthy would never stand for it, and secondly because the people in this country do not realize that they have more power than they think they do, and are fully capable of turning this crooked government around.
Do the people have any idea that if they were to put Hillary into office, this country will have been under the control of only 2 families for over 20 years? Since when did the US operate under a Dynasty system? Why don't you hear the media promoting that fact?
Since you feel that the media is partisan, to which party do they push? Media it's self is big business and big business is Republican in nature but I constantly hear people talk about the so called "liberal press." I see them lean towards and away from individuals but not parties. Regan was granted a pass for everything he did, by the media. Carter could do noting right by the media. Clinton was often hit hard by the media but he made it easy for them. Bush the lesser has gotten away with murder as far as the press is concerned. This is not true of the Republican party, just individuals. I think they were sorry for Regan, knowing he was in over his head.
So tell me, with which party do you figure the press likes?
The very earliest president included John Adams and John Quincy Adams so this sort of think is not new by any means. And every person born in this country and thirty five years or older has a constitutional right to run for president. People have the option not to elect if they disapprove!
I agree with you about campaign funding and the problems there. We do need to do something different on that and lobbying.
For all that "getting out in front of crowds and meeting voters," the vast majority of voters never meet a candidate in any given year and get to have a long conversation with him. Therefore, the candidate still has to use the media to really tell what he wants to tell. Obama made a trip to Idaho and 14,000 people heard him. That is the first candidate we've seen since Harry Truman. And the majority of Idaho voters did not get to hear him. That's inadequate to determine the relative qualifications of multiple candidates.
I can't believe that a primary in June, followed by a run off a week later, would severly restrict the amount of money to be utilized in the general election. If not, set rules to accomplish that. I know, money is free speech. Can anyone say publicly financed campaigns?
However, we need to take Campaign Finance Reform to the next level.
Is it money wasted? You bet it is! Without enough money, about $30 million a month minimum, it's a total waste of time for anyone to run for National office. That money would have been better spent as donations to the charities of ones choice.
Because of the activism I do, I glean information from many different media sources as well as a variety of other outlets. It would take me the better part of an afternoon to specify each media source and the individual proof to explain what I meant.
What you said about the individuals you listed was true, up to Bush. Some media has allowed him to get away with things, and others have tried to crucify him. The media got a lot out of Clinton, but again not for many of the important issues, such as his lack of action on all the attacks against the US while he was in office. The media was too focused on his antics to make the public aware of his severe shortcomings or duplicity in the important areas. If his actions or lack of in certain instances, had been fully exposed by the media, perhaps the people of this country would not have been so complacent prior to 9-11.
I still hold to what I said, I will find it a very difficult task to vote for ANY of the candidates still in the race. NONE of them are concerned with bringing this country back to the great nation we were.
I agree with you that the media portrays a bias one way one time and another at another time or different instances of the media.
I don't think, for a minute, that it behooves one to not vote as there is always a difference! Any leader can be quite comfortable in misguided behavior when they know that there is that much apathy among the populace. Please, pick one and vote!
It was well known when this country was founded that it would come down to the choice of the lesser of evils. In many countries the people don't select the prime minister, the party does. I prefer to vote for the lesser of evils!
I'd like to see a law that requires all candidates to use public funds and requires all media outlets to do balanced reporting. It's disgusting how many of the candidates listed above were not even mentioned more than twice (once when they announced, and once when they dropped out).
So called debates were clever paradies of that time-honored campaign activity, with "star" moderators asking inane questions and being clever. Shame on them for how they have hijacked and belittled an important process like national elections. Political ads should be public service announcements.