Thompson’s fundraising suffered from the outset. Since his campaign’s late start last fall, he has raised only $12.8 million, placing him a distant fourth behind McCain ($32.1 million), Giuliani ($47.2 million), and Romney ($62.8 million).

Of course, fundraising doesn’t tell the whole story. Giuliani’s $47 million hasn’t bought him a strong primary showing yet (to be fair, he has focused primarily [no pun intended] on Florida), and Huckabee’s tiny $2.3 million earned him at least a short moment in the sun. So let’s take a look at Thompson’s performance in the primaries thus far:

• Iowa: His 13% support wasn’t necessarily a disaster. After all, he tied with John McCain.
• Wyoming: With 25% of caucusgoers’ support, he came in a distant second behind Mitt Romney’s 67% finish. But since only Romney and Thompson contested that state, it was a sound defeat for Thompson.
• New Hampshire: Thompson’s last-place finish, with just 1% of the vote, was another tough loss for a candidate whose fiscally conservative message should have resonated with New Hampshire Republicans.
• Michigan: More bad news for Thompson here, another state in which his ‘Reagan conservatism’ should have played well. He finished fifth among the Republicans, with only 4% of the vote. Only Giuliani, who did not seriously contest the state, did worse.
• Nevada: Again, only Giuliani, who was absent from the state, scored lower than Thompson’s 8%.
• South Carolina: Thompson’s third place finish here was good news, but only comparatively. He garnered 16% of the vote, about half of what second-place finisher Mike Huckabee received.

With consistently poor election results and little money coming in to fight the big states of Florida (January 29), California (February 5), and New York (February 5), the time had simply come for Fred Thompson to call it quits.

…And if Giuliani’s relentless pursuit of Florida doesn’t earn him a stunning victory next week, he may very well be next.

Post from: EveryJoe

No surprise – Fred Thompson is out

Currently, federal law requires that campaign expenses be disclosed to the Federal Election Commission. Both the FEC and non-profit groups like Opensecrets.org make this campaign spending information available to the public.

At the most recent disclosure date, the candidates had spent approximately $265.5 million (far less than they had raised). Of this:

• Media purchases accounted for only 14% of the total! We tend to think that advertising constitutes the greatest expense of a campaign, probably because it is the highest-profile type of purchasing. But it pales in comparison to…
• “Campaign expenses,” which accounted for 19% of expenses. According to Opensecrets.org, “Campaign Expenses” include things like rallies, surveys and other research, and salaries for consultants.
• But by far the biggest type of expense is – Administrative Costs, which accounted for 53% of campaign spending. Administrative Costs are simply the costs required to run the campaign, including things like office rental, staff salaries, travel expenses, food, office equipment, legal fees, etc.

It’s easy to forget the huge number of small expenses that go into keeping a campaign marching forward, and the small army of anonymous staffers who do the vast bulk of the work. So if you are planning on running for president, remember that about half of your income will end up going to campaign administration. And if you donate to presidential campaigns, 50 cents of every dollar you send goes not to glamorous things like attack ads or A-list events, but to copy paper, staples, and pizza for the interns. But that isn’t necessarily a bad thing – as Napoleon said, an army marches on its stomach.

Post from: EveryJoe

Where do they spend it all?

1. The Court upheld limitations on campaign contributions. According to the Court, these limitations protect against “the reality of appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions.” Although the Court remained uncomfortable regulating contributions, it felt that the government had an overriding interest in ”safeguarding the integrity of the elctoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion.”
2. The Court struck down limitations on total campaign spending. Although some people claimed that equalizing spending would create fairer elections, the Court explained that different campaigns often cost different sums, and a total spending cap could actually hurt less well-known candidates, who have to spend more to catch up to candidates with better name recognition. Finding that there is no overriding government interest in limiting campaign spending, the Court said it was a violation of the First Amendment.
3. The Court also ruled limiting candidates’ use of personal funds to be an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Personal spending restrictions unnecessarily infringe upon a person’s right to spend his or her own money to engage in political debate.

In Buckly v. Valeo, the Court also ruled in favor of campaign donation disclosure rules and various other aspects of FECA. As the 2008 election cycle continues campaign donations will probably reach a record $1 billion. As we hear of more proposals to limit campaign spending and certain types of campaign speech, it is important to remember Buckley v. Valeo, and the Court’s reminder that the First Amendment plays a major role in political campaigns.

Post from: EveryJoe

The Supreme Court and Campaign Spending

• The total raised so far in Iowa by all candidates is $873,141.
• Despite a recent suggesting that Mike Huckabee (R) is a favorite of Iowans, his fundraising in the state has lagged – he has raised only about $19,500.
• The fundraising frontrunners are Mitt Romney (R), with $143,900, and Hillary Clinton (D), with $123,038.
• Fundraising by party has been about equal. Democrats have garnered about 52% of all campaign donations in the state.

The most interesting bit of information here is the disparity between Mike Huckabee’s strong performance in last week’s Des Moines Register Poll and his weak fundraising within Iowa. At first glance, one might expect his strong poll numbers to be reflected in his fundraising. But campaign finance disclosure is never as current as the latest polling data, so when updated financial information is available we may find that Huckabee has experienced a surge in Iowa fundraising lately.

There are also several problems with the poll itself that may have caused Huckabee’s support to be over-reported. But public opinion surveys are a topic for another day…

Post from: EveryJoe

How much are the Iowa Caucuses worth? (Part 2)

According to several trustworthy estimates, candidates will spend at least $22,000,000, and as much as $30,000,000 wooing Iowa caucusgoers. How much is that per voter? Bear with me – the answer requires some math.

In 2004, turnout for the Iowa Caucus was 133,353, which equaled 6.1% of eligible voters.

In 2000 it was 145,000, or 6.8% of eligible voters.

Let’s use the 2000 figure, since there was no incumbent candidate.

In the last 8 years, the population of Iowa has increased, so a caucus turnout of 7% next January would equal about 208,740.

At, say, $25,000,000 in campaign spending by all the candidates contesting Iowa, that gives us a figure of…

$119.76 per caucusgoer!

Now let’s try that in Base-8.

Post from: EveryJoe

How much are the Iowa Caucuses worth? (Part 1)