The 2012 presidential campaign
passed the $2 billion mark in fundraising Thursday, fueled
by 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 the election on track to be
the costliest in modern U.S. history. It comes amid a
campaign finance system vastly altered by the
proliferation of outside groups and "super" political
committees that are bankrolling a barrage of TV ads in
battleground states.
President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt
Romney have brought in about $1.7 billion so far this
election, according to fundraising reports submitted
Thursday night.
Added to that: nearly $300 million in donations involving
super PACs since early 2011, as well as tens of millions
more in donations to nonprofit groups that run election-
related ads but don't have to disclose their donors.
Obama, the Democratic Party and related fundraising
committees raised a combined $88.8 million for the first
15 days of October, reports showed, while Romney's
fundraising apparatus reaped $111.8 million during the
same period.
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
$79.6 million through Oct. 15. Restore Our Future,
founded by former Romney aides, reported pulling in
$130.6 million so far. And Priorities USA, a pro-Obama
group founded by two former aides to the president,
reported $62.8 million in contributions.
Added to that: nearly $300 million in donations involving
super PACs since early 2011, as well as tens of millions
more in donations to nonprofit groups — often affiliated
with super PACs — that run election-related ads but don't
have to disclose their donors.
Presidential candidates in 2008 raised more than $1.8
billion in inflation-adjusted figures. This time, new factors
have contributed to the 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 that "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 has reported that more than 4 million donors
have contributed.
Obama spokesman Adam Fetcher acknowledged
Thursday that Romney and his supportive super PACs
were outspending the president on the airwaves. He said
the Obama campaign was making efforts to expand its
donor base as it headed into the remaining days before
the election.
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, emboldened 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 donors to give unlimited sums. That kind of
money has largely 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 and former
candidate and House Speaker Newt Gingrich.


m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/presidential-election-hits-2b-fundraising-mark-035518690--election.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US