by Larry Smart

Created on: April 16, 2008

An Analysis of Presidential Candidate's Fund-raising and Expenditures

In the 2008 Presidential Campaign new records are being set in fund-raising by several of the candidates. On the side of the Democratic Party, two candidates are locked in a heated battle for the party's nomination, which has resulted in an on-going, costly fight between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barak Obaba. The Republican nomination has been clinched by Senator John McCain.

To date Hillary Clinton has raised over $160 million. While this is an impressive number it is not as much as Barak Obama's more than $193 million raised thus far. On the GOP side, John McCain has raised $64.6 million to date. It appears that the reason the democrats have raised so much more money is so that they can continue to fund their fight with each other over the party's nomination. There were also more candidates on the republican side which diluted much of the money prior to the clinching of the nomination.

Major contributors to Hillary Clinton's campaign include: health care professionals and HMOs, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists, lawyers, Hollywood, and the real estate industry.
Barak Obama's major contributors consist of retirees, computer & internet companies, and educational professionals and unions as well as commercial banking interests.
John McCain's major contributors are found in retirees and lobbyists as well as the oil & gas, real estate, and telephone/utilities sectors.

It seems that much of the money behind Hillary Clinton is betting on her plan for implementing a socialized health care system for the United States. Health care providers, HMOs, lawyers, insurance companies, Big Pharma, and related interests all stand to benefit from Hillary's single-payer scheme (also known as "Hillarycare").

The majority of Obama's funding comes from people giving small amounts of $200 or less. This indicates that he has a message that is convincing the lower middle class and other "grassroots" organizations to give what they can. It also seems to indicate that larger organizations, corporate donors, and other larger benefactors are not taking him very seriously or see that he has little or nothing to offer them.

On the expenditures side, the majority of the money raised is spent on media expenses and administrative costs including salaries and benefits. These seem to be right in line with what the expenses should be for the running of a campaign. It only makes sense that getting the word out through media channels would be the biggest expenditure and that there would be a lot of staff that needs to be paid to carry out the campaign. I can't see anything that I would do different if I had any control over where the money goes.

I don't see any reason why the amounts of money raised should cause concern for anyone. One should have the right to raise as much money as they can, and people should be free to contribute as much as the wish. Excessive regulation has not done anything to reduce the amount of money raised, in fact it seems that the "Campaign Finance Reform" has only made it easier for the candidates to raise money, which only makes sense since the law was written by politicians who would be subject to it during their campaigns. I do see a need for transparency and honesty in disclosing who is giving the money and how much they are giving. This is a very good way for people to know what the candidates stand for and provides a clue as to what kind of deals or promises they are making with their supporters.

Learn more about this author, Larry Smart.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.