Presidential election to pass $2B fundraising mark

WASHINGTON The 2012 presidential campaign was expected Thursday to pass the $2 billion mark in fundraising, according to accounting statements submitted to the government, thanks to an outpouring of cash from both ordinary citizens and the wealthiest Americans hoping to influence the selection of the country's next leader.

The eye-popping figure puts this election on track to be the costliest in history, fueled by a campaign finance system vastly altered by the proliferation of "super" political committees that are bankrolling a barrage of TV ads in battleground states.

President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney had brought in more than $1.5 billion through the end of September, according to previous fundraising reports submitted before the final pre-election accounting statements were due Thursday night. Obama hadn't yet disclosed his fundraising for early October, but Romney's campaign said it raised $111.8 million in the first two weeks. Added to that: more than $230 million in donations involving super PACs since 2011.

The largest of those were two pro-Romney groups. American Crossroads, a Republican-leaning super PAC with ties to former President George W. Bush's longtime political counselor Karl Rove, reported raising at least $68 million through September. Restore Our Future, founded by former Romney aides, reported raising $110 million so far. Priorities USA, a pro-Obama group founded by two former aides to the president, reported raising $50 million through last month.

The $2 billion fundraising figure doesn't include nearly $130 million spent on political ads by non-profit groups that aren't required to file campaign finance reports or disclose their donors. Such so-called social welfare organizations are governed by tax laws, not election laws, although they are often affiliated with established super PACs.

Presidential candidates in 2008 raised more than $1.8 billion in inflation-adjusted figures. This time, new factors have contributed to the sharp escalation in the campaign money chase.

This year marked the first time that both major party candidates opted out from the public financing system established to set limits on how much a presidential candidate can raise and spend. Both Obama and Romney would have been eligible for about $100 million in taxpayer money to support their campaigns through the general election, but both gambled — correctly — that they could raise and spend far more.

In 2008, Obama became the first presidential contender to refuse all public financing while his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, accepted the government funds. The lopsided result — Obama outspent McCain by more than 2-to-1 in the general election — effectively ended public funding as an option for serious candidates.

With the 2012 election so tight, both Obama and Romney have spent considerable time at high-dollar fundraising events courting wealthy donors. Romney last month lamented the time spent fundraising rather than speaking to larger groups of voters, saying "fundraising is a part of politics when your opponent decides not to live by the federal spending limits."

Both Obama and Romney have raised considerable cash from small donors, too, especially the president. His campaign reported that more than 2 million donors have contributed at least $427 million to his campaign.

Federal election regulators have raised the limit on individual contributions to candidates, which means campaigns can solicit more money from donors than they have in the past. Individual donors can now give a total of $5,000 in the primary and general elections to a candidate, compared to just $2,000 in 2000.

Michael Toner, a Republican campaign finance lawyer and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said the close race between Obama and Romney and the sharply polarized electorate have also played a role in accelerating the dash for dollars.

"I don't know any campaign manager who thinks they have too much money. In this political 50-50 environment you can't ever have enough," Toner said. "Every last million could make the difference in who is elected."

But the emergence of super PACs and other outside groups, unleashed partly by the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court in 2010, has done more than anything else to reshape the contours of presidential campaign fundraising. A handful of federal court cases have broadly eased campaign finance regulations, allowing corporations and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited sums. Most of the money has been funneled to super PACs, which can raise and spend money on behalf of candidates as long as they don't coordinate expenditures or strategy with the campaign.

"The distinctive factor in this election is the outside money being spent and the corrupting money financing it," said Fred Wertheimer, a longtime campaign finance reform advocate. "It's a symbol of the disastrous campaign finance system we have and the undue influence relatively few well-financed individuals and interest groups now have over government decisions.

Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson is the top super PAC donor this year. Adelson, a billionaire, has contributed more than $40 million to Republican super PACs, including those backing Romney.

[deakae]

This is disgusting! I was happy to hear President Obama's statement recently that he opposes this, and will take every step necessary to get rid of Citizen's United during his next four years as our president.

[deakae]

This is disgusting! I was happy to hear President Obama's statement recently that he opposes this, and will take every step necessary to get rid of Citizen's United during his next four years as our president.

[cobra4by]

This is criminal. The deficit is extremely high and yet the government is talking of raising taxes. I am a federal employee that has been forced to accept the fact that my pay has remained frozen for two years. Now Obama has extended that. He states that our pay freeze will end next year and we will get a meager 0.5 % raise. Is this for real? Keep the friggin raise. And now the government has the audicity to give themselves $2 billion for the election. What a freeking disaster. This is beyond assinine.

[revmsue]

The government did not give them that money. Neither of the candidates used federal funds for the campaign. Obama has his grassroots contributors (more than 2 million)and romney has his billionaire pals. We must ask ourselves: why would billionaire businesmen be donating millions and millions to a candidate unless they expected a good retur on their investments? The Kochbrothers pledges 2 billion in support of repub candidates; I wonder what kind of favors they will be getting in return?
Read the article again:
"In 2008, Obama became the first presidential contender to refuse all public financing while his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, accepted the government funds. The lopsided result — Obama outspent McCain by more than 2-to-1 in the general election — effectively ended public funding as an option for serious candidates.
With the 2012 election so tight, both Obama and Romney have spent considerable time at high-dollar fundraising events courting wealthy donors."
Romney's supporters set the bar for donations very high, and with corporations now being able to give as much as they want, with no accountability or requirement to name the contributors, heaven only knows what he will have to do to repay their support.

[ajfmrf]

Ha,this is a disgrace.So much money handed over to elect a president.That money could be spent on a lot of programs and things here in the USA that are more important then this election.Yes we have to elect a president every four years but there is way,too much, money spent to do this.

And by the way,Romney can not even spell out how he plans to do anything.He wants us all to vote for him without knowing how or where money comes from to pay for any part of his programs.This way no one can say he did not do what he said he would-sure... vote for someone that can't,won't be upfront and honest with us....Go Obama,we know what you are doing and trying to do.

[roymacpowell]

You say Romney can not even spell out how he plans to do anything. I will remind you Obama has never publicized a plan at all. Not even in 2008. All he had to say is Hope and Change. And now he says is every thing bad about every thing Romney but no plan. Romney does have a plan that will put this country back to work and create a different direction than going down the sewer pipes.

[revmsue]

Of course Obama has a plan, it has been published and is available now. I know this because I saw the Yahoo news article about it. Romney, on the other hand, says a lot but mainly it seems to be hot air. He is now contradicting things he said earlier in the campaign, wording his sentences in such a way as to obscure the fact that he has in fact said nothing of value at all. I made up my mind the day he said the first thing he would do would be to de-fund Planned Parenthood (now he wants to eliminate PBS and NPR, too). There are too many men women and children who rely upon PP for their healthcare to do such a dastardly deed! I don't care if you approve or disapprove of abortions, it is the LAW that women have the right to choose their futures, with or without the responsibility of bringing a child into the world. Just because the option is available does not mean that it is a requirement, but for those who cannot afford to raise a child (for whatever reason, whether financial, physical or emotional) access to safe and affordable healthcare should not be denied them. We are not all millionaires who can afford the luxury of being a stay-at-home mother for our 5 kids. If we force women who do not want them to give birth to infants they cannot raise properly, we are setting those babies up to be deprived of the basics of life, love and a happy childhood, abused, murdered, or simply thrown in a dumpster when they are born. NOT RIGHT. And that doesn't even skim the surface of my disrespect for this billionaire candidate who would cut benefits for the poor while cutting his own tax responsibilities and those of his billionaire buddies. He talks around issues while Obama is very specific about what he has done, is in the process of doing and intends to do in the next 4 years. The repub campaigns would not stand a chance without the billionaire donations and the lies in the ads. There's an old saying "First liar wins" because no matter how many times the truth is told, the lie sticks in the memories of those who heard it. And that is what the repubs are counting on. "No smoke without fire" does not take into account the arsonist who deliberately sets the fire and fans it with lies or distortions of the truth. The repub spin doctors have it down to a science, and that is what the billions bought. The worst of it is, there are people who actually believe the BS and will vote accordingly.

[Krowster]

If all our politicians work with this much fever to get things done, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

[packerphan]

As other headlines scream about how white males may "bring down" Obama ... may be that the Democrats are supporting the anti-bigotry platform while the Romney campaign so "eloquently" speaks OF bigotry.

[packerphan]

As other headlines scream about how white males may "bring down" Obama ... may be that the Democrats are supporting the anti-bigotry platform while the Romney campaign so "eloquently" speaks OF bigotry.

[Bleddyn71]

Does anyone now doubt that democracy is now at the mercy of monetary power consolidated in the hands of a few?

[gerhardiii]

Just charge it to a credit card...., print more money....whatever brings you down.

[josephp5]

This money has nothing to do with the deficit. This money is from super-rich donors that hope to get their candidate elected, and then for the candidate to owe them a big favor. It sure shows us that all these claims that the rich are struggling under supposedly high tax rates is a lot of baloney. They seem to have huge amounts to donate when it comes down to their own political self-interest.

[skeezix06]

The money being spent is obscene.