The money race updated, and what the figures don't show.

Last Wednesday was the first deadline for candidates to report to the Federal Election Commission details on how they are raising, and spending their money.

This NY Times article details how much has been raised, spent, and in some instances, where the money is coming from.

As you can see from the table below, while Hillary Clinton has raised the most from direct contributions ($47.5 million), Jeb Bush has raised the most money from outside support (PAC's) with $103 million. 


For those of you that have been following my blog, you can clearly see the disconnect between direct funds raised and PAC money raised, and how this is impacting campaigns.

What the campaign filings don't show is how much the Super PAC's continue to have growing sway.  While these reports do provide an early glimpse at each campaign's financial operations, they promise to tell only part of the story.  These figures do not include any of the money being raised by the "super PACs" and other outside groups supporting many of the candidates.  In many cases, the money raised by these super PAC's will dwarf what the direct campaign brings in.

As we have discussed, some candidates are relying on these groups, which can tap unlimited corporate and individual contributions, so long as they do not coordinate directly with the candidates.  This is a huge departure from past campaigns and has directly led to candidates becoming reliant on a handful of super rich donors.

As you can with the table above, without Super PAC's, Jeb Bush would have raised approximately the same amount as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz in the Republican field.  Instead, the field is clearly separated by those that have the most Super PAC money (and again, this table doesn't show all of it).

Rick Perry offers a perfect example.  The former governor of Texas, who ran a choppy campaign in 2012, has had trouble firing up direct contributions.  Perry is at the bottom of direct money raised. 

However, a few super PAC's have furnished Perry with over $10 million, with most of that money coming from just a handful of super wealthy donors.

With some much power and influence in the hands of a few, watchdog groups (and citizens) continue to be concerned about this growing trend in fund raising.

How much $$$$ do you need to become President?

President Obama and Mitt Romney both raised over $1 billion for their respective Presidential campaigns in 2012.  And while most of us have short memories, this fund raising was done in the midst of one of the worst economies in American History. There is no recession in political fund raising!

As noted in my opening blog, the election is still 16 months away, and we have Jeb Bush, the former Governor of Florida, who has not even officially declared his candidancy, yet has already raised north of $100 million.  This, of course, is also a tactic, to potentially scare off other candidates who don't believe they could match that fund raising prowess.  As we know, it has not scared off anyone, as the list of candidates continues to expand (was 11 last week, now up to 14).

These astronomical figures are not (presumably) from You and I cutting checks directly to the candidates.  Most of the fund raising dollars are now raised via PAC's (Political Action Committees).  The limit of how much individuals can contribute is actually $2600.00, so after some quick math, one can determine the limits of individual donations in the race to $1 billion and beyond.

So how are campaigns able to raise so much cash?  The answer lies in a 2010 Supreme Court decision centered around campaign spending.

In essence, The Supreme Court decided (5-4 vote) that corporations and PAC's have the same right of political speech (and donations) as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics (via PAC's, which we will cover below - please keep reading).

After the Citizens United decision, any outside group can utilize corporate money to make a direct case for who deserves your vote and why.  This has created PAC's (and super PAC's),  a species of political committee that wasn't possible before Citizens United. It can take contributions of any amount.  The heart of Citizens United is the notion that superPACs, and other outside groups, are completely independent of candidates. That underpins the Court's conclusion that unregulated money from big donors wouldn't be corrupting to lawmakers.

Every candidate, from both parties, now must play this game - raising money through PAC's, as its an arms race for cash.  Without money, campaigns would simply stop; fund raising is essential.

Some early estimates predict candidates must raise over $1.5 billion in order to win in 2016.  For some scale, Wendy's restaurants has over 6000 locations, over 30,000 employees and had just over $2 billion in sales last year?  That's a lot of burgers, but it would be just enough to run for President in the United States.