John Edwards Raises $7 Million for Q3, makes a total of $17 Million with Public Financing included.

[jsamuel]

John Edwards has $12 million cash on hand and $22 million cash on hand with public financing.

John Edwards as raised $30 Million total or $40 Million with public financing.


So John Edwards made $17 Million and Obama has made $19 Million in Q3. Richardson raised $5.4 Million. We have yet to hear from Clinton.


* $7 million raised this quarter.
* 70 percent of the contributions came from grassroots fundraising.
* More than 150,000 contributors from across the country this year.
* 93 percent of contributions were in amounts of $100 or less.
* 97 percent of contributions were in amounts of $250 or less.
* Less than 1 percent of contributions were in amounts of $1000 or more.
* Almost half the donors this quarter were first time Edwards contributors.
http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071001-campaign-raises-7-million/

[Cameron27]

1. What are the strings attached to public financing?

I think that has to be added into the equation.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. What is the big deal over how many millions a candidate is able to raise?

Very, very little of that money comes from rank-and-file, average Americans; the vast bulk comes from corporations and a tiny handful of extremely wealty individuals. If anything, I'm inclined to vote against big money makers, as they come with very powerful puppet-masters who will be calling their every shot.

[jsamuel]

5. Less than 1 percent of contributions were in amounts of $1000 or more

* 93 percent of contributions were in amounts of $100 or less.
* 97 percent of contributions were in amounts of $250 or less.
* Less than 1 percent of contributions were in amounts of $1000 or more.

What you say is why public financing is so great. The money comes from average Americans and the gov't instead of corporations and big money.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics

The pertinant question is: What is the median contribution?

Let us suppose that the $7 million dollars represents 10,000 individual contributions. The statistics you provided would still be accurate if 99 of those contributions (less than one percent) totaled $6.5 million in aggregate.

So again, ask yourself: Will the candidates beholden themselves to the 9901 donors who provided half a million total, or the 99 donors who provided $6.5 million total?

[jsamuel]

9. all 10 million from public financing came from the American people

the maximum donation is $2300. You can't give more than that so it can't stretch the median contribution to the extremes in your post.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. I would still want to see an honest, factual breakdown by individual donor

Anyway, I thought Edwards had turned his back on public financing because it would require limiting the total amount of money raised. Or is it only Clinton and Obama that have refused public financing?

[Cameron27]

11. Edwards turned it down in Feb.

[jsamuel]

12. for contrast, 44% of Clinton's contributors have donated the full $2300.

17% of Edwards' have donated the full $2300

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. I withdraw my complaints

For some reason, I was thinking that campaign contribution limits were a matter of state law and did not apply to federal elections. I found this information at the website of the Federal Elections Commission, which stated otherwise. Mea culpa. :blush:

[jsamuel]

18. No problem. The truth is that Edwards has the most low dollar donations as a % of his total.

including Obama

and before public financing

[gateley]

7. They've (MSM) acknowledged from the beginning that those with the

most money have the best chance of winning. I assume it's because they can stage rallies like that amazing one Obama just had in New York, they can buy advertising time to get their faces in front of the people, they can hire the best advisers and strategists, and on and on.

And ironically, the more they're able to do that, the more they draw focus to themselves and the rank-and file Americans are only given info on those particular candidates so tend to focus on them. If I didn't have the internet, I'd think that I'd be needing to choose between the Top Three, too.

It sucks. I hate it. It really makes me angry and frustrated.

Even if my guy was one of the high rollers -- of course I'd love that exposure -- but I'd still think it was a disservice to the American public.

[gateley]

3. Congratulations are in order -- Mighty impressive! Where does one

this info? 'd like to see how my beleaguered candidate did.

Thanks.

[jsamuel]

4. Each campaign is releasing it at their leasure.

I check here:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/

[gateley]

13. Thanks. Congrats again to Edwards. nt

[rinsd]

6. You may have to wait until Oct 15th.

Campaigns are not under any requirement to release fundraising numbers until then.

On Oct 15th the FEC posts the results and you can view them either on their site or open secrets does a good job - http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

[gateley]

15. And thank you, too. Continuing education here on DU. I'm most appreciative! nt

[rinsd]

17. No problem.

Open secrets is a great resource for campaign funding stuff including demographic/industry/top contributor breakdowns.

[gateley]

16. PS -- Poor Gravel -- that's downright painful! :(

[AmBlue]

19. Edwards is doing this for US...

and the America we all dream of living in. It's so obvious when you look at where his funding is coming from. This country needs John Edwards to be President. DC is scared to death of him because he's going to shake things up in ways they've never seen before. When you look at his life's work and read his book, you can see he's spent a lifetime standing up for the little guy. And we're all getting smaller every day in the current equation.

NOTE TO WASHINGTON LOBBYISTS: The party is over the day John Edwards is sworn in. And they know it. :nuke:

NOTE TO VOTERS: Edwards is who the lobbyists are MOST afraid of and that's EXACTLY why we need him.