Thursday, April 03, 2008

$694,000,000.00 and Change (thanks to Life Hiker (see his comment))

That’s how much has been contributed by people, PACs, previous campaigns and “other” to all of the presidential candidates through February 29, 2008 according to fec.gov. It doesn’t count the $42.9 million that Romney gave himself. The news today reports that Obama took in $40 million in March with Clinton getting about $20 million.

That totals three quarters of a billion dollars. About $254 million to Republicans and $500 million to Democrats.

There’s seven months to go till the election.

I’m thinking were aren’t likely to get a result that’s worth the money.

10 comments:

Posol'stvo the Medved said...

I love Freudian typos like "fec.gov." As in "fecal government?"

You can fix it if you want, but if it were me, I'd let it stand.

Dave said...

fec: Federal Election Commission. A real live agency with an unfortunate and maybe accurate initialism.

Posol'stvo the Medved said...

Oh.

Well that's not nearly as much fun.

I retract my earlier exuberantly happy and amused comment.

Lifehiker said...

As a good accountant, I should point out that your heading is lacking 3 zero's.

$694,000,000.00 is definitely more impressive than $694,000.00. However, perhaps we have actually got value more in terms of the latter number.

Speaking of politics, I heard Obama discuss issues on a radio show yesterday. He's clear, concise, easy to listen to, and not selling pie in the sky. He's my guy.

dr sardonicus said...

Nor are we likely to see meaningful campaign finance reform anytime soon, so things will probably just continue to get worse.

fermicat said...

Obama has raised his money from well over 1 million donors, most of whom donate relatively small sums (the average contribution is just under $100). If that isn't the very definition of campaign finance reform, I don't know what is.

Dave said...

Fermi, Obama's also taken almost no PAC money in contrast to McCain and Clinton. That's reform too.

I guess my point, not well made in the post, is that our electoral process is ridiculously expensive.

Minnesotablue said...

I'm one of the new contributors for March. First time I've made a presidental contribution. Go Obama

Ron Davison said...

Color me odd, but I don't think that we spend too much on defining and selecting candidates who'll govern us. We have a $13 trillion economy - $694 million represents about five one thousandths of ONE percent of the GDP. Small price to pay for a process that raises the probability of electing the right candidate.

The Curmudgeon said...

Indeed. No matter what the result.