I guess I was wrong.

The donors helped Mr. Obama, a first-term senator little known outside Illinois four years ago, best Mrs. Clinton in the first quarter of fund-raising for the Democratic primary by $5.7 million, according to reports filed Sunday with the Federal Election Commission.

But her campaign proved it still had the support of some deep pockets. About 5,100 big contributors accounted for about three quarters of the $26 million combined that she raised for the primary and general election, pulling her very slightly ahead of Mr. Obama by just $200,000 in total fund-raising for the quarter. And, with $10 million rolling over to her primary campaign from her last Senate race, Mrs. Clinton was well ahead in cash in the bank.

The first quarter financial reports, which were due at midnight Sunday, offer a glimpse into an aspect of the presidential election that sets it apart from all before. All of the leading candidates have elected to forgo public campaign financing in order to raise and spend private donations without any limits. Several have raised more than three times as much as any candidate did during the same period before the last election.

The leading Republicans filed their reports Friday and Saturday, and Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were the two top fund-raisers in either party. Mrs. Clinton raised $19.1 million for the primary, and $6.9 million for use in the general election (accessible only if she wins the nomination). Mr. Obama raised $24.8 million for the primary and $1 million for the general election.

The primary campaign of former Senator John Edwards said in its filing that he had spent less than $3 million of the $13 million he raised in the quarter, leaving him with $10.7 million in the bank. He raised less than $1 million for the general election.

Although Mr. Obama has sought to publicize his campaign’s emphasis on small contributions, he, too, depended heavily on a relatively small number of big checks. About 4,800 supporters gave the maximum $2,300 to his primary campaign, accounting for about $11 million, nearly half his total. About 75 of those donors gave another $2,300 to his general election fund, according to an analysis of his campaign’s filing.

On Sunday, his campaign released a list of about 130 bundlers who had each raised $50,000, for more than $6.5 million, about a quarter of his total for both races.

Mrs. Clinton, though, depended even more heavily on on a relatively narrow base of wealthy and committed donors. More than 5,100 gave the legal limit of about $2,300 to her primary campaign, contributing more than $11.7 million, nearly two thirds of her primary fund. What is more, nearly 3,000 of those who had already hit the $2,300 limit for the primary also contributed $2,300 toward her general election fund , adding up to $19 million for those elite donors.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign also released its own list of 84 bundlers who had each collected $100,000 or more in checks for her campaign, together accounting for at least $8.4 million.

How many poor people could they help with all that money to be spent on an office that pays $400,000 per year?

My eyes glaze over the numbers I read from both the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates.

Money is what has corrupted our political system. You give a lot, you expect a lot and that means special interests every candidate is beholden to if he or she ultimately wins.

Written by ~J~

Comments are closed.