|
Campaign Contributions May Predict Superdelegates’ Vote By Rob Hotakainen When Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill endorsed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, she said she'd found a candidate who ``gives us a reason to believe again.'' Obama believed in her, too, donating $10,000 from his political action committee to McCaskill's 2006 campaign. She received nothing from the PAC of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. And when California Rep. Doris Matsui endorsed Clinton, she said the former first lady had been ''a consistent champion and friend'' of Asian Americans. Clinton's PAC had also befriended Matsui, giving $5,000 to her campaign. Matsui received nothing from Obama's PAC. McCaskill and Matsui are among the nearly 800 superdelegates who'll have a big say in who heads the Democratic ticket this fall. While both women say the PAC contributions didn't influence their choice for president, a study by the Center for Responsive Politics concludes that campaign contributions have become a fairly reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. If that's the case, it's good news for Obama. Since 2005, his PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC has. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the three-year period. The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82 percent of the time. That's based on a review of elected officials who are serving as superdelegates and who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25. In cases where superdelegates received money from Obama's Hope Fund but none from Clinton's PAC, Obama got the superdelegates' support 85 percent of the time. In cases where superdelegates received money from Clinton's PAC but none from Obama's, 75 percent backed Clinton. Some superdelegates, such as Democratic Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, received $10,000 from both Obama and Clinton. Neither senator has endorsed a presidential candidate. TIEBREAKERS The superdelegates include nearly 800 members of Congress, governors and Democratic Party leaders who could be the tiebreakers in the close race between Clinton and Obama. The study noted that many of them are the candidates' friends, colleagues or financial beneficiaries who have much closer ties to the candidates than regular delegates. ''While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $904,200 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years,'' the study said, adding that both Clinton and Obama ``will be calling in favors.'' While McCaskill received nothing from Clinton's PAC, McCaskill's spokeswoman said that former President Bill Clinton attended a fundraiser for her in Missouri and that Clinton hosted McCaskill for a fundraiser in New York. ''Certainly folks can draw all sorts of false conclusions and assumptions if you look at reports that focus on only one detail or another,'' said McCaskill spokeswoman Adrianne Marsh. ``The fact of the matter is that while Senator Obama's support was extremely helpful, Senator and President Clinton raised well over $1 million for Claire's Senate campaign in 2006. After looking at the whole picture it's clear that Claire's support of Senator Obama is based on no other motivation than her firm belief that he is the right choice to move our country forward.'' Matsui said the Democratic Party is ''lucky to have two talented candidates'' but added that she has a longer history with Clinton. ''Throughout my 15-year history of working with Senator Clinton, I have seen her exhibit the qualities needed in the next president of the United States,'' Matsui said. ``Based on that long-standing personal and professional relationship, I chose to endorse her as our nominee.'' Clinton and Obama have been wooing the more than 400 superdelegates who have yet to endorse a candidate. According to the latest count by The Associated Press, Obama has 1,406 pledged delegates compared with 1,249 for Clinton. It takes 2,024 delegates to win the party's nomination. As the campaign kicks into its final phase, the superdelegates are bickering. This week, 20 top Democratic donors who are supporting Clinton criticized Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California for saying superdelegates should support the presidential candidate with the most pledged delegates. Pelosi, who hasn't endorsed either candidate as chair of the Democratic National Convention, said during a March 16 appearance on ABC's This Week that it would be harmful to the party if superdelegates don't support the pledged-delegate winner. IN-FIGHTING In their letter to Pelosi, Clinton's supporters said superdelegates ''must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party's strongest nominee in the general election.'' The letter also noted that the donors ''have been strong supporters'' of the House Democrats' fundraising apparatus. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the letter-signers and their spouses have donated $23.6 million to Democrats since 1999, including $554,000 to Clinton's campaigns and PAC. That's 10 times what they contributed to Obama. To see a list of the contributions made to superdelegates, go to www.capital eye.org/superdelegates.aspObama and Clinton Spending Furiously By Michael Luo Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton both spent at the furious clip of nearly a million dollars a day in January as they battled to win the initial contests for the Democratic nomination, according to filings on Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission. But by the end of the month, Mr. Obama was left in a much better position financially because he raised more than twice the money that Mrs. Clinton raised in January, giving him a commanding cash advantage heading into a pivotal series of contests in February. Mr. Obama spent more than $30 million in January, compared with the $28.4 million spent by Mrs. Clinton. But Mr. Obama brought in $36.1 million in January, more than anyone has ever raised in a single month in the history of American politics, with $28 million coming over the Internet, according to his campaign. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton raised just $13.8 million in January. She also lent her campaign $5 million at the end of the month. As a result, aided by money he began the month with in the bank, Mr. Obama ended January with $18.9 million heading into the coast-to-coast primaries and caucuses on Feb. 5. In contrast, Mrs. Clinton was left at the end of January with just $8.9 million in cash available for the nominating contests, along with more than $20.3 million set aside for the general election that cannot be used to help her in the primaries. As of the end of January, the Clinton campaign had spent $106 million over all on Mrs. Clinton’s primary campaign and raised $118 million, including money for both the primary and the general election, although her total receipts were $138 million, including transfers from her Senate campaign fund as well as her loan and other money. Mr. Obama had spent $115 million for operating expenditures and raised $137 million. Most significant, all but $6 million of his money is available for use in the primary. On the Republican side, candidates saw their financial fortunes in January rise and fall with their political prospects. Senator John McCain, who emerged at the end of the month as the Republican front-runner, brought in $11.7 million in contributions for the month, close to the most he had ever raised in a three-month span previously, as Republican donors jumped on his bandwagon with his victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. Even with his best fund-raising month yet, however, Mr. McCain had raised just $48 million since his campaign began through January, a fraction of the nearly $140 million that Mr. Obama brought in during the same period. Mr. McCain’s financial report for January illustrates the depths he rose from. With his hopes for the Republican nomination pinned almost entirely on winning the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8, Mr. McCain turned to what was left of a $4 million loan that he took out in November to bolster his final push there. Mr. McCain had already drawn down nearly $3 million from that loan in multiple installments in November and December to keep his flagging campaign afloat. In early January, he pulled out another $950,000 — almost all of what was left in the loan — to help him in the homestretch for New Hampshire’s primary. The infusion of cash enabled him to beat back Mitt Romney’s well-financed campaign in New Hampshire, setting Mr. McCain on the path to the nomination. Mr. Romney’s report showed that he pumped in another $7 million of his own money into his campaign, bringing the total amount of money he gave his campaign to $42.3 million. He also raised $9.7 million in January and was left with $8.8 million in the bank at the end of the month, although he would ultimately pull out of the race after a disappointing performance in the states that voted on Feb. 5. Bolstered by his newfound fund-raising prowess and the loan to his campaign, Mr. McCain ended up matching Mr. Romney’s spending for the month as they battled each other from New Hampshire to Michigan and then on to South Carolina and Florida, which proved to be pivotal. Mr. McCain spent $10.4 million in January, compared with Mr. Romney’s $10.3 million. Mr. McCain finished the month with $5.2 million in cash on hand, although his campaign owes $5.5 million to various creditors. Also, $2.5 million of his money is general election money. At this point, however, he is the presumptive nominee of his party. His advisers said many former fund-raisers for rival Republican campaigns are signing up to help Mr. McCain, and he is beginning to build a fund-raising apparatus to be able to compete with the eventual Democratic nominee. Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa caucus in the beginning of January but went winless throughout the rest of the month before rebounding in Southern states on Feb. 5, reported raising nearly $4 million for the month. After spending nearly $5 million, he finished the month with $929,401 in cash in hand. Rudolph W. Giuliani’s campaign, which went into a free fall in January after leading national polls and many early state surveys for months, raised $3.1 million in January and finished the month with nearly $9 million on hand, although the campaign also listed $2.2 million in debt. Almost $6 million of his money was also set aside for the general election. Some senior staff members voluntarily went without salaries in January, but the filings revealed that many continued to be paid, a sign that the campaign was not necessarily on the verge of bankruptcy but had been trying to save money to prepare for contests that would never materialize after Mr. Giuliani pulled out at the end of the month. Leslie Wayne, Griffin Palmer and Aron Pilhofer contributed reporting.
|
|
A Feast
|
