In 2000, 155,000 people contributed to Gore's campaign. Over 1 million have now contributed to Kerry's. Kerry has outraised Bush each of the last three months and most certainly will for June. ________________ July 2, 2004 FUND-RAISING Clicking Into the Kerry Coffers for a One-Day Online Record By GLEN JUSTICE WASHINGTON, July 1 - Senator John Kerry collected more than $34 million in June, including $3 million raised online on Wednesday, setting a record for single-day Internet fund-raising and causing the campaign's computers to crash. "There wasn't even any significant political event," Michael Meehan, a Kerry spokesman, said of the record online donations. "A lot of people predicted a slowdown, but in fact we've grown it. It's like the Wild West." Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has raised more than any challenger in presidential campaign history, brought his total for the election to about $180 million, with a steady stream of mail, Internet and phone contributions as well as fund-raising events in Los Angeles, Aspen and elsewhere. Mr. Kerry has raised more than $44 million through mail and phone solicitations and more than $56 million over the Internet this year. President Bush, who holds the overall presidential fund-raising record, raised about $213 million through May and had about $64 million in the bank at the end of June, according to his campaign. It did not release other totals for June. When Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush each accept about $75 million in public financing after their nominations at the conventions this summer, it will signal an end to fund-raising for their campaigns. Both candidates have been shifting their focus to raise money for the political parties, which will be the primary fund-raising vehicles in the general election. Any money left over after the campaigns pay expenses from the primaries can be handed to the national party committees, according to the Federal Elections Commission. It is unclear how much Mr. Kerry will have left. The campaign numbers did not include spending totals or how much was in the bank. Mr. Kerry took out a $6.4 million loan in December as his fund-raising lagged. It will have to be paid off shortly after the Democratic National Convention, which ends July 29, if he is going to use campaign money to do so. In addition, the Democratic convention is five weeks earlier than the Republican event, meaning Mr. Kerry has less time to finance his campaign with contributions and will have to begin using his federal money sooner than Mr. Bush. Though neither candidate will disclose his complete finances for June until he files reports to the election commission three weeks from now, Mr. Kerry's numbers were intended to showcase a financial turnaround that has been building since he emerged as the presumptive nominee in March. The money has allowed Mr. Kerry to spend $43 million on television advertising since May and to add campaign staff in critical swing states. Though Mr. Bush has spent far more - including at least $85 million on commercials since March - Mr. Kerry's fund-raising and spending has far outstripped what many Democrats thought he was capable of just months ago. "The strength of the small donor has helped level the financial playing field with the Bush campaign," Mary Beth Cahill, Mr. Kerry's campaign manager, said in a statement. Much of the reason for Mr. Kerry's success is the campaign's strong use of the Internet as a fund-raising tool. The campaign has maintained a steady drumbeat of online solicitations to keep the money coming, including several on Wednesday. "This is the last time before the Democratic convention that the campaign will report our fund-raising figures - a critical measure of our strength," Ms. Cahill told supporters in an e-mail message. Mr. Kerry has also vastly increased his web of high-dollar fund-raisers in recent months. Almost 350 people have now raised at least $50,000 each for the campaign; almost half have raised $100,000 or more. Mr. Bush's network of six-figure fund-raisers has grown to 526. Both parties have begun fund-raising programs of their own, recruiting some who raised tens of thousands for Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush to raise even more for the party committees. The Republican National Committee released a list this week of 62 "super rangers," who have raised at least $300,000. Among them were many of Mr. Bush's friends and longtime supporters, including Nancy Kinder of Texas and Bradford Freeman of California, both of whom have raised hundreds of thousands for Mr. Bush over the years. The Democratic National Committee has similar programs, including 17 "trustees," who have raised at least $250,000, and more than 170 "patriots," with at least $100,000. In May, the Republican National Committee had almost $72 million in the bank compared with the $50 million for the Democrats, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign financing. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/politics/campaign/02donate.html?pagewanted=print&position=
When over a million people do it ( in small donations) , and not just huge corporations, then yes it is a good thing.
Unseating one of the worst administrations in our country's history is not a waste. Go ahead and make a difference.
Well, at a general level, I feel like Max is asking this in a way: With so many problems and causes facing us, isn't it sad that what we can get behind is paying millions of dollars for huge TV ad budgets for a couple of ******* politicians? Or at least that's my question.
On one level, it just is... a refelection of what our Democracy has become. On another level, it's a good thing if you are a Dem or sick of Bush. On yet another level, it shows the committment in the Dem Party this year. Quite a few folks refuse to think of this as any other election.
I wish they would put a limit on the amount people and corporations can give. Something like...no more than $2,000 individually, and $10,000 as a company. This amount is ridiculous and PACS are ruining our republic. DD
I actually think it's good for America if there is a relative parity in money. If one side gets an overwhelming amount, it becomes much easier to abuse the system.
$2,000 is the limit any individual can give a candidate. Married couples count as 2 individuals, so Mrs. rimrocker and I could give a total of $4,000 to any candidate. You can give more to the National Committees and a bunch more to advocacy groups.
What is to stop a person from starting up 1000+ micro PACs? It would be different if said person or corporation is limited to $2000/$10000 per election cycle.
"Campaign donation" is usually a euphemism for "bribe," no matter who's sucking up the dirty bucks. This kind of money is not dished out with no expectation of a return on the investment. Ask Halliburton. Thanks to "bundling" and other standard bribery-donor practices, the limits as they stand now are little more than a formality. ALL donation-bribes should be banned, and the FEC should get a plan that enables the messages of the 3 top vote-getters (or the 2 top vote-getters and the incumbent) to be heard by everyone, equally.
I think they should have the money for running out of taxes x amount per candidate plus x amount of tv time everyone should have an equal amount and time i think the pre-req for being a candidate should be defined [so many signatures etc] Rocket River money should not buy elections