Rick Klein is ABC News' Senior Political Reporter and author of The Note's morning look at the upcoming day in politics. Throughout the day, ABC News' political team contributes to The Note with the very latest news and analysis from the nation's capital.
To email Rick Klein, click here.
RECENT POSTS
- The Note's Must-Reads for Thursday, November 26, 2009
- Palin to Headline 'TEA Party Convention'
- GOP Strategist Predicts "Purity Test" Resolution Fails at RNC
- Democrats Divide on War Tax
- Gibbs: Obama to Emphasize Exit Strategy
- Price Tags: Costs Rise for Obama on Afghanistan
- The Note's Must-Reads for Wednesday, November 25, 2009
- ‘Top Line’ with Sally Quinn -- Inside the First Obama State Dinner
- GOPers to Biden: Stop Using Stimulus Jobs Numbers
- Exit Ramps: Democrats Grow Restless on Afghanistan Strategy
THE NOTE CATEGORIES
- 2010
- Afghanistan
- Bill Clinton
- CIA
- Congress
- Democratic party
- Environment
- Financial Reform
- GOP
- Gov. Mark Sanford
- Gov. Sarah Palin
- Guantanamo
- Health Care
- Hillary Clinton
- Immigration
- Iran
- Iraq
- John McCain
- Mitt Romney
- North Korea
- Obama Agenda
- Politics Live
- President Obama
- Republican Party
- Ronald Reagan
- Sen. John Ensign
- Senate
- Sonia Sotomayor
- Stimulus
- Sunday Shows
- Supreme Court
- Ted Kennedy
- The Note
- The Note Must-Reads
- Top Line
- Vice President Biden
- Virginia
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Did Obama Buy the Presidency?
December 04, 2008 11:12 AM
ABC News’ Rick Klein Reports: The final fundraising and spending reports from the presidential campaign are due by midnight Thursday to the Federal Election Commission -- and the numbers will almost certainly play out in stark detail what we’ve long known: That Barack Obama badly, ridiculously outspent John McCain.
Obama’s total fundraising number is expected to top $750 million -- more than the total raised by George W. Bush and John Kerry combined in 2004. When you factor in money raised for the Democratic National Committee, the convention, the transition, and the inauguration, Obama may wind up being the first ever billion-dollar politician.
By contrast, McCain and the Republican National Committee had in the neighborhood of $500 million to spend for the general election -- an astounding figure by itself, but not even close to Obama money.
This is no small shift. Democrats for decades have struggled to achieve fundraising parity with Republicans at the national level, and all of a sudden this first-term US senator blew all the precedents out of the water.
It’s also likely to spark a renewed discussion over whether Obama bought the presidential election.
Karl Rove makes that case Thursday in his Wall Street Journal column.
“If money talks, we'll likely soon hear the real reason why Barack Obama beat John McCain,” Rove writes. “Rather than showing the success of a new style of post-partisan politics, Mr. Obama's victory may show the enduring truth of the old Chicago Golden Rule: He who has the gold rules.”
Obama famously broke a pledge to run with public financing, despite McCain’s decision to stick with the system that every candidate for more than 30 years has utilized.
This freed Obama to raise and spend as much as he could, all while McCain could spend just $84 million during the general election. (The RNC -- and, of course, outside groups -- were free to spend more on McCain’s behalf, but Obama could also benefit from similar groups on the Democratic side.)
Surely the forces that boosted Obama to the presidency were not all commodities to be purchased. Even McCain has acknowledged the powerful pull his message and his biography had on the electorate, in a year where the Republican brand was in tatters.
But it’s worth remembering the enormous advantage Obama’s virtually unlimited kitty provided him.
Money -- probably more than message -- allowed him to expand the map. In short, he didn’t have to make any tough spending choices, allowing him to invest heavily in advertising and field operations in traditionally Republican states, even while continuing to outspend McCain in traditional battlegrounds.
“From Obama’s standpoint, he could basically play all the hunches,” said Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising spending. “They had more money than there was TV time to buy.”
Obama spent about $236 million in TV ads in the general election, on top of about $70 million in the primaries, according CMAG data. Contrast that with $126 million McCain and the RNC spent in the general (plus another $37 million spent on McCain’s behalf by the RNC’s “independent expenditure” arm), and $10 million McCain spent on television in the primaries.
Drilling down a bit, it’s clear that the Obama campaign maximized the impact of its spending. CMAG data shows Obama having spent $8.9 million more than McCain in the Miami media market and $7 million more in the Tampa area; Obama flipped Florida en route to his election victory.
Obama had a $5.1 million TV edge in Indianapolis and spent $1.7 million more than McCain in Chicago, mostly to reach Indiana voters. He spend $2.2 million more than McCain in Boston -- helping him hold New Hampshire -- as well as $3 million more in Cleveland, and $4 million in Philadelphia.
In Washington, DC, the spending edge was staggering: Obama spent $11.2 million more than McCain, primarily to reach Virginia voters (as well as opinion leaders who live in the Washington area).
On Election Day, the Northern Virginia counties of Prince William and Loudon flipped from red to blue -- as did the Old Dominion State.
Rove uses the Obama spending advantage to argue that the current campaign-finance system -- which limits individual donations to $2,300 per candidate for the primary, and $2,300 for the general -- should be scrapped.
“It is time to trust the American people and remove limits on how much an individual can donate to a campaign,” he writes.
There’s a lot of talk about needing to, at the very least, revise the public-financing system, to recognize the vast fundraising potential realized by Obama.
What do you think should be done -- if anything -- in time for the next cycle?
December 4, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (139)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I'm so happy Obama won!!!
Posted by: DKR | Dec 4, 2008 12:27:02 PM
Changing his mind about public financing was a stroke of genius.
Posted by: LongT | Dec 4, 2008 12:28:29 PM
Too bad Obama won't have some of that same money to use on most of his campaign promises; he will need it to explain to the public why 90% of those promises are now off the table...
Posted by: Richard | Dec 4, 2008 12:30:07 PM
Mr. Rove, your opinions mean nothing anymore. Why don't you keep your albino hyena face out of the media? Obama and the American people won. Get a life and move on. Message of hope and truth prevail. Not your tactics of fear and division.
Jan...money talks and walks...no matter how you slice your minced whatever pie.
Posted by: khatts98178 | Dec 4, 2008 12:32:33 PM
You should read the recent headlines in the AJC here in Atlanta, i.e "Security Team Now in Place". National Security Team Faces Global Challenges", etc. It's as if we currently don't have these agencies already until Obama arrived on the scene.
Posted by: LongT | Dec 4, 2008 12:33:07 PM
What a STUPID question!
I GAVE money to HIM - he didn't give it to ME! SO who bought the Presidency? ME!
I did it for my country because I LOVE the USA!
Posted by: Independant Woman | Dec 4, 2008 12:34:20 PM
Linda - Wow, are you off the mark on this election! If you don't think the Democrats won big with a resounding mandate against the Repug. machine you are greatly deluding yourself. Obama won because he was the best candidate. Granted, Hillary helped him in the end but he was on his own for 90% of the time with just his supporters. Guess we knew something you didn't. He'll be a great President, but I am sure you haters will never admit it--not even if you were "water-boarded"!!!
Posted by: geecee | Dec 4, 2008 12:34:37 PM
It took most of that money to cover up his lies, pay his criminal thug friends not to rat him out and to keep his empty suit inflated long enough to win by any promise.
Posted by: dilligaf | Dec 4, 2008 12:39:34 PM
The republicans now want to lift limits on individual contributions, go figure. They see there's more individuals in the general public donating to Obama, so to combat that they want the generally-weathier republicans to be able to donate more individually. I like small individual limits; this way the person with the more individual contributors will do better, not the person with the wealthier following.
Posted by: Matt | Dec 4, 2008 12:42:52 PM
Obama did not buy the election. Those who donated to his campaign, are the
same people who elected him.
He did not bribe people in order to vote for him. Instead he used the money to educate them.
Posted by: FM | Dec 4, 2008 12:43:14 PM
HH...we are not going to regret it. Obama and the American people are going to put things back that were stomped on by the current arrogant administration and its monsters. Obama and the American people raised enough money to fight off lies and fears that your side puts out every four years to scare off the truth and nothing but the truth.
Linda Mahoney...or is it horney? You sound like a dried up horned toad complaining of nothing...and a sore loser. Get on the winning wagon and help out our country. If not shut up.
Posted by: khatts98178 | Dec 4, 2008 12:44:24 PM
you have to include FOX NEWS and all right wing Radio and born again advertising against Obama. He had to raise big money to even approach the deck stacked against him. Great job OBAMA !
you have to include FOX NEWS and all right wing Radio and born again advertising against Obama. He had to raise big money to even approach the deck stacked against him. Great job OBAMA !
Posted by: philosopherkingtomas | Dec 4, 2008 12:44:40 PM
Mr. Rove, your opinions mean nothing anymore. Why don't you keep your albino hyena face out of the media? Obama and the American people won. Get a life and move on. Message of hope and truth prevail. Not your tactics of fear and division.
Jan...money talks and walks...no matter how you slice your minced whatever pie.
Posted by: khatts98178 | Dec 4, 2008 12:46:04 PM
If he had that much $$$ he should have won by a bigger margin.
Posted by: Jane | Dec 4, 2008 12:48:49 PM
If you call outspending your opponent several times over while maintaining a positive message and sticking to the issues while you opponent throws everything including the kitchen sink and the oak trees(acorns) at you while screaming negatives at the top of his/her lungs and talking about everything but the issues buying the election then yes, Obama bought the election.
Posted by: Jenny Rome Ga | Dec 4, 2008 12:50:02 PM
Obama supporters proudly point to the small donations that he received and seem unaware of all the large donors that contributed to him in the primaries and in the general election. In their minds they contributed the most of the money and while he did gain many small donors, he also raised extraordinarily large amounts from very large donors who may expect something in return.
Clearly Obama excited and energized voters. His large amounts of money made it possible for him to tell his story to more people than if he had stuck to the measly $85 million as he said he would.
But, what if the next person who decides to fund their own campaign does not have the same intentions? And, what if the audit that won't be done on his fundraising had turned up some questionable actions? Or if the next person who decides to raise their own money because if they can win by a large enough electoral margin there won't be an audit?
For the Obama supporters it doesn't matter, their objective was achieved. They don't care about broken promises about taking federal money or lack of an audit. The ends do seem to justify the means.
Posted by: suki | Dec 4, 2008 12:54:25 PM
It is very interesting to me that Karl Rove is saying that Obama bought the presidency, all the while saying he wants the restrictions on the donation amount lifted.
The fact of the matter, average citizens are the ones that funded and elected Obama. Mr. Rove is simply looking for a way to allow corporations and large lobbying groups (NRA) to fund the Republican Party in a major way... if this is done, they can outspend their opponents without the worry of the acceptance of the citizens of the United States of America.
Karl Rove is a sick man and he completely disgusts me. It is an atrocity and disservice to Americans to know he has influence.
Posted by: Jason Shimmy | Dec 4, 2008 1:03:49 PM
Republicans and conservatives lost because they are all idiots. Finally, we're cleaning house of all of these greedy corporate, bastards.
Posted by: Chris | Dec 4, 2008 1:05:27 PM
This only proves, yet again, that candidates should ONLY be allowed to use funds that are equally divided to the candidates (and not just the 2 major parties, but to include those who represent at least 10% of all registered voters...or something close to that). Taxpayers elect to have $5 donated to the "election fund" and every four years, that money is equally dispersed. The FCC regulates all TV and Radio adds, ensuring that only those paid for by public funds are aired. The internet is different, since it can't be regulated, but if we can have Presidential elections based on the issues, not money spent, we will be better off AND we could make our system more than just a Two Party system that provides voters with more options; and since parties must have 10% support, choices would be limited to a small, managable amount. That is REAL reform. Take money out of it and things will improve with more choices.
Posted by: Gary | Dec 4, 2008 1:08:37 PM
This has never been an issue with other presidential candidates. Why now?????
The American public donated! The American people voted! Pure and simple! I donated 3 times because I wanted to! Barack Obama did not buy the presidency! And he was not selected but ELECTED!
President-elect Obama ran a flawless campaign. Get over it!!!!
Posted by: Shay | Dec 4, 2008 1:09:18 PM
Post a comment
POLITICAL VIDEOS
THE NOTE BLOG ROLL
- ABC News -- George Stephanopoulos
- ABC News -- Jake Tapper
- ABC News Politics
- ABC News -- The Numbers
- ABC News -- The Blotter
- The American Prospect -- TAPPED
- The Atlantic -- Politics Channel
- The Boston Globe -- Political Intelligence
- Center for American Progress -- Think Progress
- Center for Responsive Politics
- The Chicago Sun-Times -- Lynn Sweet
- The Chicago Tribune -- The Swamp
- Drudge Report
- FactCheck.org
- FiveThirtyEight
- Heritage Foundation -- The Foundry
- The Hill -- Briefing Room
- The Hotline
- The Huffington Post
- The Los Angeles Times -- Top of the Ticket
- NPR -- Political Junkie
- National Review -- The Corner
- The New Republic -- The Plank
- The New York Times -- The Caucus
- Newsweek -- The Gaggle
- Political Wire -- Taegan Goddard
- Politico -- Ben Smith
- Politico -- Mike Allen’s Playbook
- PolitiFact
- Real Clear Politics
- Talking Points Memo
- Time -- The Page
- USA Today -- On Politics
- Variety -- Wilshire & Washington
- The Wall Street Journal -- Capital Journal
- The Washington Post -- The Fix
- The Washington Post -- 44
