“Barack Obama raised more than $150 million in September, a stunning and unprecedented eruption of political giving that has given him a wide spending advantage over rival John McCain.”
–Miami Herald, October 22, 2008

The Obama campaign has raised $400 million more than the McCain campaign yet has recently emailed supporters claiming McCain has $20 million more in its coffers at the final days of the election. Which bears the question: which candidate ran a more “fiscally conservative” campaign?

The MSM reported that the Obama campaign is flush with cash, raising money in “record” numbers from campaign contributors with a “wide, spending advantage”, yet DBKP has learned the campaign is telling supporters a different “story”: McCain and the RNC have $20 million more than both the Obama campaign and the DNC:

Excerpt from an email sent October 30 by Joe Biden and Obama for America:

“We just learned that the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee had a $20 million cash advantage on October 15th. That means we can expect to see a fierce blitz of negativity in the final days — so-called “robocalls,” mail pieces, and TV ads filled with smears and false attacks.”

Another email, sent out on the same day from Marianne Markowitz, Chief Financial Officer of
Obama for America, carried the same message:

“As of October 15th, John McCain and the RNC together had nearly $20 million more in cash than the combined total of Obama for America and the DNC. And just this week, we’re facing new and unexpected spending against us in Montana and West Virginia.”

What’s interesting is the timing: CNN and other MSM outlets reported that the Obama campaign had announced on October 19 they had raised a “record” $150 million in September.

Both emails soliciting donations claimed the money was needed to fight McCain’s “negative ads”
while Biden wrote about the McCain campaign’s “TV ads filled with smears and false attacks”. Markowitz cited “new and unexpected spending against us in Montana and West Virginia”. Biden closed his argument with this warning: “We can’t let our opponents’ low-road tactics prevail. To stand up to this last-minute spending spree, we need to step up our efforts.”

Here’s what was reported on October 22 in the Miami Herald:

“Campaign manager David Plouffe, in an e-mail to supporters Sunday morning, said the campaign had added 632,000 new donors in September, for a total of 3.1 million contributors to the campaign. He said the average donation was $86.

The Democratic National Committee, moments later, announced that it raised $49.9 million and had $27.5 million in the bank at the start of October. The party has been raising money through joint fundraising events with Obama and can use the money to assist his candidacy.”

The Herald reported that the Obama campaign had raised $605 million. The Herald also stated that
“the combined Obama and DNC totals for September now give the Democrats a distinct financial advantage going into Election Day, just 16 days away” yet the Obama campaign is telling supporters a vastly different story: that the McCain and RNC have $20 million more cash in their coffers.

The New York Times published an article about the Obama campaign and how it had spent the hundreds of millions sent in by supporters:

So far:

* Obama has raised $400 million more than McCain
* Spent $280 million in advertising
* Has 700 field offices compared to McCain’s 400
* Obama’s thirty minute Primetime infomercial cost “well over $3 million”
* $31 million for payroll
* Last week the Obama campaign spent “nearly twice as much” in TV advertising

The Obama campaign, according to the New York Times piece, claimed the Obama campaign has been “frugal”, yet the campaign has literally spent hundreds of millions more than the McCain campaign and now faces a “deficit” in regards to who has more money to spend as election day looms less than four days away. The McCain campaign, according to the Times, has been “constrained” by the $84 million under the public financing system.

Obama’s “Promise”

In February of 2007 Barack Obama not only promised to accept public financing in the general election if he won the Primaries but put it in writing:

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

According to Newsweek, in March, McCain accepted Obama’s “pledge” and announced he would too would accept public financing. Obama then did an “about face” and claimed that he had “never made” any such pledge and then declined.

Michael Dorning of the Chicago Tribune wrote an article on how Obama “bucking the system” had allowed him to “free himself” from spending limits while McCain is “forced to work with a smaller pool of money”.

President of the United States, Chief of the Executive Branch

Obama claimed that his “running his campaign” was his “executive” experience while major newspapers who endorsed Obama cited the “vast” success of the campaign as one reason they were supporting a candidate with little record to run on. Both McCain and Obama are running their campaigns for the same result: to get elected as the next President. The admission by the Obama campaign that they have “discovered” that the McCain campaign has millions more to work with–$20 million–in the final days of the election are stunning:

The McCain campaign, forced to compete within a much “smaller” budget, has managed to run a much more efficient campaign. The Obama campaign has raised $400 million more than McCain, yet now claims it has $20 million less in its coffers. This doesn’t bode well for an Obama Presidency, especially in lieu of the promises Obama has made in regards to “fixing” the economy while out on the campaign trail, promises echoed by the endorsements of newspaper editors across the country:

The Marshfield (Wis.) News Herald endorsed Obama on Oct. 31:

“It’s the economy. More than health care, more than taxes, more than Iraq, the presidential election comes down to the economy.

“Layoffs, plant closings, tumbling stock markets and a financial institution bailout all comes down a faltering economy.

“We can’t afford a Republican as president any longer. We need change.
-Star Tribune

So, if the Presidential election does come down to the “economy” then voters should be aware that the Obama campaign has had a distinct advantage: a budget of $400 million more than McCain, who opted for public financing after Obama had made his pledge to do so to. Even with the vast amounts of money raised by the Obama campaign and the claims of being “frugal” the campaign has “suddenly” discovered they have $20 million less than McCain.

If one were considering hiring a company to “fix” the economy what would be a priority? Would you look at “results” versus “promises”? Would you hire someone who had a budget five times bigger but spent their money fives times faster for the same result? Or would you hire someone who showed enough fiscal “restraint” to get the same result such as the McCain campaign?

Another way to look at it is that Obama and his campaign are geniuses at raising money, but failures at managing it. Not a good sign when entrusted with fixing an economic crisis at the taxpayer’s expense. On the other hand, McCain isn’t skilled at inspiring large crowds but managed to budget his campaign, even under the constraints of public financing, and hundreds of millions of dollars less to work with. This is proven results which can be translated into how both of the candidates will manage the business of running the government.

UPDATE: A third email has been sent out by the Obama for America campaign regarding the $20 million. The 3rd email is from Markowitz and offers a front seat to five donors at the Obama event on election night in Chicago:

Yesterday the McCain campaign said they would outspend our campaign by $10 million in the final days. This is on top of recent news that, as of October 15th, our opponents had $20 million more in the bank than our campaign and the DNC combined.

As of this morning, they may be able to outspend us — but your generosity in response to my last email gives me hope that by the end of the day, we can rise to the challenge.

We knew the McCain campaign was saving its resources for a last-minute blitz, and now we know just how much they’ll pour into it.

No matter what, we need to match what our opponents are spending in the final stretch. We can’t slow down between now and Election Day.

And if you give again today — any amount — you could be one of 5 previous donors who will have a front row seat for the big Election Night event in Chicago with Barack.

We got a chuckle when we read this part: “they may be to outspend us”. Perhaps if the Obama campaign had managed their money wiser during the election they wouldn’t have had to face this last minute “budget” crisis.

By LBG

Image - Mega Millions