Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brooklynite

(94,599 posts)
Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:46 AM Jun 2015

Keeping track of the 2016 money chase

NBC News:

Just more than two weeks from now, we'll reach our next milestone in the 2016 presidential contest: The first results from the money race. The 2nd fundraising quarter (April 1 thru June 30) ends at midnight, and the campaigns and Super PACs are required to report their results with the Federal Election Commission by July 15. So that's the date when we'll find out which campaigns have raked in the most money, as well as which big donors have written hefty checks to Super PACs. Keeping track of the 2016 money race will be harder than ever before -- given all of the different candidates, the different Super PACs, the different 501c4s. Here are some of the questions we'll be looking to answer:

- Does Hillary Clinton surpass the nearly $33 million Barack Obama had raised in the 2nd quarter of 2011?
- Does she come close to the nearly $63 million she had raised by June 30, 2007? (Caveat: She had raised that amount in two quarters in 2007, but this one will be her first of 2016.)
- Did those pro-Ted Cruz Super PACs really bring in $31 million-plus?
- How much did Rand Paul's campaign raise?
- Did Jeb Bush's Super PAC exceed $100 million?

One thing worth remembering: We're really not going to see campaign numbers for Scott Walker and John Kasich, since they will be announcing AFTER June 30. And we'll get just ONE DAY for Christie's campaign.


Remember, everyone here is opposed to money in politics, but it's the system we have until a Democratic President can work to overturn CU. The Republicans will be putting up more than $1 B for the 2016 race, and we better not unilaterally disarm.
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Keeping track of the 2016 money chase (Original Post) brooklynite Jun 2015 OP
Going negative is expensive for sure AgingAmerican Jun 2015 #1
I know..I know Peacetrain Jun 2015 #2
I predict on the GOP side, well over 2 billion. Iliyah Jun 2015 #3
 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
1. Going negative is expensive for sure
Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:52 AM
Jun 2015

The more negative a candidate is, the more it costs, because they have to saturate the airwaves with bullshit.





Peacetrain

(22,877 posts)
2. I know..I know
Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:53 AM
Jun 2015

Its a reality that we have to deal with.. and the best.. and I mean the BEST any of us can do is to try and elect someone who once in office will try and get CU overturned.. till then.. we all have to deal with PACS in one or another.. and use them .. just a reality

Iliyah

(25,111 posts)
3. I predict on the GOP side, well over 2 billion.
Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:35 PM
Jun 2015

They need to save, especially the Senate, and take back the WH any means necessary.

That, and blocking American's from voting i.e. minority areas mostly.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Keeping track of the 2016...