• Obama has 10 times more campaign cash than Romney - $104 million war chest
    36 replies, posted
[QUOTE](CNN) – President Barack Obama's re-election team increased their war chest by roughly $20 million in March, bringing the incumbent Democrat's cash on hand funds to just over $104 million, more than ten times the amount his likely Republican challenger Mitt Romney declared in federal filings Friday. [B]The financial disclosure from Obama's campaign comes after the announcement Monday his team had raised $53 million in the month of March, an increase of $8 million from the month before. $35 million was raised by Obama's campaign, and the remainder was brought in by the Democratic National Committee.[/B] In filings with the Federal Election Commission on Friday, Obama for America also recorded spending over $15.5 million in March.[B] Romney's campaign filings show the GOP candidate's organization spent $10.3 million.[/B] The money raised goes to the Obama Victory Fund, which is divided between the Obama re-election campaign, the Democratic National Committee and affiliated committees. [B]Obama broke all records by raising nearly $750 million during his 2008 campaign for the presidency.[/B] Earlier Friday, Romney announced he had raised $12.6 million in primary funds in March, bringing the total amount of primary funds raised by the Republican candidate over the past year to $87 million. Romney's campaign noted they have $10.1 million cash on hand, and that the former Massachusetts governor, who has an estimated net worth of $190 million, had not made any personal loans to his campaign. In their release, the Romney campaign said that 84% of all donations received through the end of last month were $250 or less. Monday the Obama campaign announced that 97% of their donations in March were for $250 or less. Donations made to Romney's campaign in March came amid major shifts in the race for the 2012 GOP nomination. Romney entered the month in a fierce competition for delegates with former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. After winning contests on Super Tuesday, as well as taking Illinois' primary on March 20, Romney emerged as the candidate most likely to clinch the GOP nomination. Santorum ended his presidential bid April 10. Filings for the month of April, which will be filed with the FEC in mid-May, will better reflect a general election contest between Romney and Obama.[/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/20/obama-fundraising-shows-hundred-million-dollar-war-chest/[/url]
Part of that is because Obama hasn't had to spend nearly any money on primaries. I have seen one or two commercials from the White House, but nothing like what Romney has been spending.
This money could be put to much better uses than stupid campaign shit. Oh well, thanks 'democracy'
loadsemone
All that money just to say something like; [quote]Hey guys vote for me to make decisions FOR YOU, I have more money than the other guy but hey I'll represent your ideas and shit and I'm accountable as fuck[/quote]
There should be a maximum amount of money that somebody should be allowed to spend in a campaign.
The amount of money a campaign has doesn't mean anything. It's how they use it.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;35662556]The amount of money a campaign has doesn't mean anything. It's how they use it.[/QUOTE] when you have 10x more money, it means something.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35662521]There should be a maximum amount of money that somebody should be allowed to spend in a campaign.[/QUOTE] clean elections? ;p
[QUOTE=Oecleus;35662615]when you have 10x more money, it means something.[/QUOTE] But not much. I mean it's Obama the current President going against Romney who's been getting a lot of hate so
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;35662192]This money could be put to much better uses than stupid campaign shit. Oh well, thanks 'democracy'[/QUOTE] With a country of 300 million+, you can't get that sort of exposure for nothing. If you stripped everything down to volunteers, posters and maybe a couple of tv broadcasts, it'd still cost millions in travel expenses and tv fees. Unless you have a giant grass-roots movement (Which still takes exposure) campaigns will always cost obscene amounts of money. The only alternative to campaign donations is to have the public pay taxes and give everyone running a budget.
Instead of shitty little campaign ads they should spend it all on a blockbuster movie about Obama blowing shit up
[QUOTE=smurfy;35663155]Instead of shitty little campaign ads they should spend it all on a blockbuster movie about Obama blowing shit up[/QUOTE] Hell, I'd watch an action movie staring our president.
[QUOTE=smurfy;35663155]Instead of shitty little campaign ads they should spend it all on a blockbuster movie about Obama blowing shit up[/QUOTE] Expendables 3
The Rock as Obama.
Obama, BLASTING AWAY ALL THE DEBT [img]http://viralpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/coolest-est.jpg[/img] COMING NOVEMBER 2012
If I ever get the chance to talk with the man, I am actually going to suggest he do an action parody/satire of basically the shit he has had to deal with as president when he finishes his next term. Basically have it play to every stupid rumor and story and all the bullshit. Have it show him being born in Kenya with Bin Laden as a brother or gay lover. At some point have him in the U.S. robbing banks with a gang of Mexicans, and somehow work in Communism as a plot element. Basically the most nonsensical mess ever clearly making fun of the right and all the bullshit they say about him. [editline]21st April 2012[/editline] And Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have to be the heroes in an appallingly bad buddy-cop relationship.
I find it somewhat insane that so much money is used on just choosing the candidate for presidency. Of course, it's nothing compared to USA BNP, but still - it could do good somewhere else. Here in Denmark, volunteers put up posters (mostly payed by the state) for their party and candidate, and the media exposure is done on, of course partially commercials on buses and so on, but mostly debates set up by the state funded TV channel DR1. Makes for a much fairer race, as even small parties get the exposure they need. Never seen a TV ad for a candidate. Of course USA is a very different place, but it would be nice if money didn't mean so much.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;35662513]All that money just to say something like;[/QUOTE] America has become an attention economy, where money goes towards trying to occupy people's attentions. The elections, the same as with commercial ads, simply spend their money on being seen by people and people tend to vote for who they're familiar with. It really has nothing to do with the politician's ideas, planks, and platforms. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy[/url] Honestly I think it's starting to take hold everywhere else in the world.
Okay, Kochs, time to write another check!
I don't see how it matters. Or are they implying that having more ad cash = victory? If so then well, go politics?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35664754]If I ever get the chance to talk with the man, I am actually going to suggest he do an action parody/satire of basically the shit he has had to deal with as president when he finishes his next term. Basically have it play to every stupid rumor and story and all the bullshit. Have it show him being born in Kenya with Bin Laden as a brother or gay lover. At some point have him in the U.S. robbing banks with a gang of Mexicans, and somehow work in Communism as a plot element. Basically the most nonsensical mess ever clearly making fun of the right and all the bullshit they say about him. [editline]21st April 2012[/editline] And Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have to be the heroes in an appallingly bad buddy-cop relationship.[/QUOTE] This is a pretty awesome idea! I'd watch it.
Most presidents get a 2nd term anyways
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;35662192]This money could be put to much better uses than stupid campaign shit. Oh well, thanks 'democracy'[/QUOTE] it's HIS money that he has raised
Yeah, he could use it for far better things
[QUOTE=The Baconator;35665210]Most presidents get a 2nd term anyways[/QUOTE] Not counting Obama, 3 out of the past 6 presidents were one terms - Ford, Carter and George H. Bush That's a 50/50 chance, going by that.
Ford doesn't really count
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35675398]Ford doesn't really count[/QUOTE] 2 out of 5 isn't impressive either.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35664754]If I ever get the chance to talk with the man, I am actually going to suggest he do an action parody/satire of basically the shit he has had to deal with as president when he finishes his next term. Basically have it play to every stupid rumor and story and all the bullshit. Have it show him being born in Kenya with Bin Laden as a brother or gay lover. At some point have him in the U.S. robbing banks with a gang of Mexicans, and somehow work in Communism as a plot element. Basically the most nonsensical mess ever clearly making fun of the right and all the bullshit they say about him. [editline]21st April 2012[/editline] And Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have to be the heroes in an appallingly bad buddy-cop relationship.[/QUOTE] I like where you are going. Please go to film school, good sir.
[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;35665267]it's HIS money that he has raised[/QUOTE] Campaign funding should come from a national pool evenly distributed among presidential candidates, not from a private source. For one it would put an end to some candidate being able to speak louder than another, you heard of Gary Johnson at all? No? That's because he has a tenth of what Romney has. Second it would allow more control over what candidates DO with the money such as outlawing attack ads. They'd have to actually campaign and convince people they would make a good president based on their own policies instead of spending the whole time doing the tar and feather routine. Third, no one can 'buy' a candidate anymore, organizations can't pick and choose a candidate to donate money to because whether they donate $10 or $1 million it gets handed out evenly to candidates. So you don't get a rich organization funding a single candidate to get a better chance of getting a president that is sympathetic to them rather than someone else. It's all a media game, the one who can hold the spotlight the longest stands the best chance of making it to the final election. FOURTH, and most important if you ask me. With so many different candidates having equal opportunity to get their word out people would have to actually listen to what they have to say and read up on the different choices. If they fuck up and misuse the money they get to pay for their mistakes out of their own pockets with interest, and the money gets redistributed through the campaign pool.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.