RSS 2.0 FeedRon Paul Raises $ 5 Million In Third-Quarter
by Doug MataconisRon Paul campaign released the official third quarter fundraising numbers today, and they are pretty impressive:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 3, 2007
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA — The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter.
Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.
“Dr. Paul’s message is freedom, peace and prosperity,” said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “As these fundraising numbers show, more Americans each day are embracing Dr. Paul’s message.”
Ron Paul’s 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney’s fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.
In round numbers, $ 5,000,000 is nowhere near the money that’s been raised by Clinton, Obama, Giuliani et al, but it’s fairly impressive for a grassroots campaign.
David Weigel puts the numbers in perspective:
Here are Paul’s numbers quarter by quarter:
Q1: $639,889
Q2: $2.40 million
Q3: $5.08 millionSo he’s raised about $8.2 million and spent $2.9 million, a burn rate of around 35 percent. That’s a little lower than the burn rate for the frontrunning candidates—though if you’re a cynic you could ask why Paul’s investment hasn’t shown up in the polls.
A legitimate point, but it will be interesting to see how the MSM treats the fact that the Paul campaign has out-raised guys like Mike Huckabee and has more cash on hand than John McCain.
He had more COH than McCain last quarter, and more COH than all of the other 2nd tier candidates combined. Maybe this time he will have almost as much raised as McCain, and as much raised as all of the other 2nd tier candidates.
Comment by Cathy — October 3, 2007 @ 1:41 pmThere are a number of reasons why he isn’t placing higher in the polls, mostly because they leave him off or bury his name in phone polls, and because the MSM has not paid him much attention. May news of his fundraising success will get him some much needed attention. This definately puts him in the so-called “1st tier” candidates.
Comment by nullvalu — October 3, 2007 @ 1:50 pmDidn’t Guiliani make around 10 million?! How is 5 million no where near 10 million? When you look at the republicans numbers Ron Paul is right in this fight. The other candidates get constant media coverage over nothing. If you don’t see this as an incredible accomplishment, then you need to change this site’s name. Stop reading what other morons in the tabliod media have to say about it and go tell someone you know about Ron Paul if you really care about Liberty.
Comment by Will Masur — October 3, 2007 @ 1:54 pm$5M is more than I thought he’d raise.
Comment by Bob — October 3, 2007 @ 1:58 pmYou don’t think…no, its not possible… is it?
You don’t think that Buckwheat and the true believers in Paul are right? Naw can’t be :-)
How did he burn through all that cash-on-hand at the end of last Q? I think his #Q fund-raising numbers are great, and I’m happy to contribute. But he hasn’t ran any media ads, or anything. Where is the $$ going?
Comment by TC — October 3, 2007 @ 1:59 pm“Though if you’re a cynic you could ask why Paul’s investment hasn’t shown up in the polls” is a legitimate point in that the cynic recognizes that the polls couldn’t possibly be correct.
Comment by William — October 3, 2007 @ 2:02 pmGamnbling9-11 (admittedly, a very pro Paul site) has odds of 6-1 as an RP president pick. This, however, should speak much louder than any of MSM media polling source. The odds are the results of real people, putting up real money on a candidate they think will win.
The MSM media now MUST consider Paul a “top-tier” candidate not matter how distastful they or their media bosses find it. A $12M goal by the end of the 4th quarter is indeed a lofty one. No doubt media coverage is being factored in.
Comment by Gene — October 3, 2007 @ 2:08 pmOne of the realities of politics is that it takes $$$ to run a campaign. There are supplies to buy, fuel bills to pay, lunches, dinners, computers. Ther are alot of ways to burn through cash without putting a single ad on the air.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 3, 2007 @ 2:12 pm“Ther are alot of ways to burn through cash without putting a single ad on the air.”
That is true, but he ought to spend at least some of this money on the things that other candidates raise money for – ads in papers and on TV, etc.
Don’t get me wrong – I like the guerilla marketing strategy and I am very happy to have donated, no matter what he chooses to do with the money. I’m just saying, given the way elections work these days, some ads in early primary states could go a long way. It would be awesome if a candidate could actually win a major-party primary without running a single media ad, but I don’t see that happening.
Comment by TC — October 3, 2007 @ 2:22 pmcluck cluck… It’s nowhere near Hillary… cluck cluck
Watch out for acorns…
Comment by Chicken Little — October 3, 2007 @ 2:24 pmTC,
I think you’re right. Grassroots efforts are a good starting point, but eventually you need to evolve into ads on conventional media (television, radio, newspapers, etc.). While I doubt I’ll see a Paul TV ad in my state (being as it’s relatively small) I hope that he’s starting to buy them in major markets right about now. People generally make up their minds about the candidate they’re voting for a couple of months before the election. If he waits too long he’s going to get lost in the white noise at voting time when everyone’s saturating the airwaves and slamming each other. That won’t work to his advantage.
Comment by UCrawford — October 3, 2007 @ 2:27 pmThey all burn through the cash, its a campaign its cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to do printing, offices in each early primary state, staff in those states. Travel, food, hotels.
Ron Paul is outraised Hillary by percentage – he is up 115% from the last quarter – Giuliani, Romney, McCain all have dropped like a rock
Comment by Joe Lawson — October 3, 2007 @ 2:27 pmThe sad truth is that, compared to Hillary and Obama combined, all the of Republican candidates have done a pretty pathetic job of raising money. And that is going to mean a lot when 2008 rolls around.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 3, 2007 @ 2:28 pmThe RP campaign already announced they’ve purchased TV ads for the NH area. There’s the chunk of money. The ads will begin running next week.
Comment by Gene — October 3, 2007 @ 2:29 pmThe campaign ran TV and radio ads in Iowa in the run up to Ames.
Comment by Bob — October 3, 2007 @ 2:31 pmMost of the “burn” money was to pay for venues and travel for his fund raisers and rallies. Need to spend money to make money.
Comment by William — October 3, 2007 @ 2:32 pmGene and Bob — good info. Thanks.
Hopefully, this will allow them to keep doing so.
Comment by TC — October 3, 2007 @ 2:35 pmi’d like to point out here, that TV ads are not as cost effective as they used to be in the pre-Internet era. yes they will reach AARP folk, and generally get name recognition out. but the MSM’s ignoring RP still hurts him profoundly.
running 3 or 4 sites will very insane audio and video bandwidth is expensive folks. very…very expensive and when considering the traffic on those sites, it’s just not pretty.
what i would hope is that RP’s people get in well with some local TV and ad agency people around the nation and get some really good TV ad deals, before you just buy anything. hopefully that’s already in the works.
Comment by oilnwater — October 3, 2007 @ 4:39 pmoilnwater,
“AARP folk” are the biggest bloc of consistent voters. Why do you think Social Security reform failed? And as I learned in the first campaign I worked for, name recognition is everything. People don’t vote for someone they don’t know. Those are the reasons people buy television ad time, even if it isn’t cheap…because it works.
And the reasons the MSM “ignores” Paul are because a) they’re private companies, not public entities, and they generate their profits by selling papers and advertising, b) few people outside of blog-dom know who Paul is (as proven by the polls), and c) he doesn’t buy much of their advertising space. The press don’t write stories about people who don’t help their bottom line and that 90+% of the public have never heard of. Nor do they have any obligation to. Perhaps Paul’s “supporters” should complain to their candidate about his lackluster ad campaign instead of whining about the fact that the media have just as much of a right to chase a buck as anyone else.
Comment by UCrawford — October 3, 2007 @ 4:57 pmU,
first off, i wasn’t complaining, cool? secondly, i know AARP folk are important. guess what, this cycle young people are going to be just as important, even when discounting the party laws being introduced in many primaries this year. thirdly, people are like dogs in that they sense fear and opportunity. much of that will trickle even into the AARP world by osmosis as more debates are played out. Early primaries, i know i know. no time, i know. i still think it’s going to be pretty nice for RP. and fourth, i get your point on MSM, however i would at least like to point to laregely ideologue MSM networks like Fox to illustrate there are sometimes other reasons than advertising for blackouts and smear.
Comment by oilnwater — October 3, 2007 @ 5:06 pmNope, I’m thrilled; they’re right on schedule.
They’ve built a base, a warchest, and a track-record of growth. Now it’s time to take the message to the general public.
Just look at the Q4 goal: $12m. The pursestring has been loosened. They’re going to spend $10m and pull in $12m and their poll numbers are going to double at least once more before the end of the year.
Unless, of course, the general public really does like big government. This is your chance, America. Put up or shut up.
Comment by Jeff Molby — October 3, 2007 @ 5:38 pmoilnwater,
The youth vote will be the key this year? Yeah, I haven’t heard that line in every single election since 1984. Funny how it never actually turns out that way (since the highest turnout for voters age 18-30 was 49% in 2004, compared to 66% for older voters). And how many of those young voters are planning on going Democrat so they can vote for Barack Obama ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-youth_30jul30,1,547657.story )?
A lot of assumptions in those opinions you’re throwing out…very little evidence that indicate it’s a reality.
Comment by UCrawford — October 3, 2007 @ 5:40 pmJeff,
I agree that his fundraising numbers are impressive and I’m glad to see it. I’m just wondering when we’re going to see those funds translate into increased ad time to attract mainstream voters.
Comment by UCrawford — October 3, 2007 @ 5:41 pmStarting next week. They’ve already scheduled ads to run in NH and IA.
Comment by Jeff Molby — October 3, 2007 @ 6:11 pmGlad to hear it. This is probably about the perfect time to starting making the big ad pushes. Early enough that people will have time to digest and think over what Paul is saying (especially the stuff about Iraq, which isn’t going to be palatable at first to a lot of people), but not so early that they’ll be sick of hearing about him by the election. Well done.
Comment by UCrawford — October 3, 2007 @ 6:42 pmi made a cogent point to your MSM point.
Comment by oilnwater — October 3, 2007 @ 6:55 pmUCrawford,
Comment by Bob — October 3, 2007 @ 6:55 pmPer usual your comments have hit a home run (not that you need me to tell you that). Especially, with the publicity from the fund raising announcement now is the time to start running ads at least in IA and NH. This will raise name recognition and bring new supporters who will bring new money.
oilnwater,
Your point is cogent as long as you accept that Fox News has absolutely no obligation to give air time to Ron Paul or any other political candidate they don’t want to give air time to. Feeling that they’re being dismissive of Paul is understandable. Assuming that they have an obligation to act otherwise is not.
Comment by UCrawford — October 3, 2007 @ 7:18 pmBob,
I think the compliment should actually go to Jeff. He’s the one working for Paul’s campaign :)
Comment by UCrawford — October 3, 2007 @ 7:20 pmuh, you just made that assumption. or you tried to make it for me at the least. seeing as how we dont know each other, i’ll let it go. just know that i’m hardcore RP, but not hardcore illogical. further, i’ve never professed or believed in a grand MSM blackout or smear conspiracy of him. at the same time, i’ve seen Fox continually black him out or smear/marginalize him if they do cover him for the last 8 months or so.
two exceptions were a positive video 1min blurb of him on Brit Hume, and Bill O’Reilly’s relatively good treatment of him while having him as a guest.(using “relative” in a strong sense.)
Comment by oilnwater — October 3, 2007 @ 7:30 pmoilnwater,
Fair enough, I did make that assumption based on your remarks (since it’s a pretty common theme that’s been posted on these threads) and I shouldn’t have done so.
I don’t disagree that Fox News is biased and that their coverage of Paul has been hostile (a couple of the many reasons I never watch their shitty network except for football). I’m just saying that it’s within their rights to be that way.
Comment by UCrawford — October 3, 2007 @ 7:34 pmABC ran a puff piece on Paul on its national news program tonight. Can we now shut up about the “MSM CONSPIRACY BLACKOUT OMG BILDERBERGS”?
Comment by Joshua Holmes — October 3, 2007 @ 8:07 pmJeff Molby:
“Just look at the Q4 goal: $12m. The pursestring has been loosened. They’re going to spend $10m and pull in $12m and their poll numbers are going to double at least once more before the end of the year.”
In fact I think the idea is to spend the $5 mil they made this quarter. That seems to be the camapigns M.O. — spend exactly what was taken in the previous quarter, and bank all the contributions from the quarter just ended.
Makes sense! Just ask McCain…
Comment by Buckwheat — October 3, 2007 @ 9:18 pmJoshua Holmes:
“ABC ran a puff piece on Paul on its national news program tonight. Can we now shut up about the “MSM CONSPIRACY BLACKOUT OMG BILDERBERGS”?”
One puff piece does not a media attitude make. The MSM are generally hostile to Ron Paul’s campaign. Not every member of the MSM, but the overall vibe of piece is much different from their take on, say, Romney or Obama.
Comment by Buckwheat — October 3, 2007 @ 9:20 pmI’m not sure if you’re reading it right or not, but that isn’t really a smart strategy given the fact that the `08 primaries are front-loaded, meaning that any campaign that wants to compete seriously will need to have serious $ on hand during the Q1 of ‘08
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 3, 2007 @ 9:25 pmDoug, it depends on how much money you think you can earn by the amount of money you spend. If Ron spends his 5 million to earn 12, he’s ahead than if he spends 2 and earns 8. Paul is doing a good job not spending more than he has, but if he wants to get out there and get himself noticed, that’s alot of flying, ad campaigning and events that he has to get put on to make sure everybody knows Paul’s name and message come January of ‘08. Hopefully, the more he spends, the more supporters come aboard and given him even more money to spend and expand.
Comment by Greg — October 3, 2007 @ 9:52 pmThere are worse strategies than to hoard everything until the last few weeks, but I don’t think it’s the best. Someone wrote an article a week or two ago saying RP08 has been too cautious and needs to step on the gas starting now.
Spending money in 4Q07 will generate more money and votes. Spending money in 1Q08 will only generate votes. Heck, if they don’t spend $10m this quarter, they’re not going to attract enough supporters to gross $12m.
We’re close enough to the finish line that it’s time to approach a sprinting pace.
“with”, not “for”. I don’t have much money, so I donate whatever free time and energy I can scrape together.
Comment by Jeff Molby — October 3, 2007 @ 10:01 pmJeff,
I was the press coordinator for a gubernatorial campaign back in 1994 and we ran into problems with our ad campaign. We were fairly strapped for cash so we had to be tight with our ad dollars and pick our spots. The campaign manager and I thought that it would be smart to do our ad blitz two months before the vote. The candidate disagreed and thought it was best to go two weeks prior. What we discovered was that a) our ads got completely lost in the noise because every other candidate decided to pick up the tempo of their ads at that time and start bashing each other (and our candidate got left in the dust), and b) it wouldn’t have mattered anyway because voters make the final decision on who they’re going to vote for before then.
Waiting until the last minute might help for someone who’s already got name recognition or is sitting on a lead. For someone who’s trailing in the polls and doesn’t have the recognition the message needs to get out much sooner so the uncommitted voters can get a sense of the candidate because they’ll rarely vote for someone they only heard of two weeks prior. People in presidential elections rarely seem to make their choices on impulse.
Comment by UCrawford — October 3, 2007 @ 11:10 pmRead my last point again, UC. I agree with you.
Click to my website and shoot an email to the “info@” address. I’d like to be able to chat with you off the record.
Comment by Jeff Molby — October 3, 2007 @ 11:48 pmIf you send a man to chop a cord of would with his hands tied behind his back not much will be done.. Ron Paul could end up in the White House this way. We must couple all our efforts with promoting the action of not voting for ANY incumbent, ever again, and by default have have TERM LIMITS. We must neuter the professionals and send people who want to serve and go home, not become tools of the Corporations and Military Industrial Complex.
Comment by Gerry — October 4, 2007 @ 4:05 amJeff,
Tried to find the info address on your site but couldn’t. If you want to chat off-line, I can be reached at nomadks@lycos.com
Comment by UCrawford — October 4, 2007 @ 9:40 amUCrawford’s point about the last 2 weeks is a very good one. It’s OK to run ads in the 1-2 weeks right before an election if you’re (1) the front-runner, (2) well-known to the populace for a LONG time (not a recently-minted phenomenon), (3) fighting back against a specific charge that has been leveled against you, or (4) some combination of all of these.
But as far as an “outsider” candidate like Dr. Paul, at least some $$ should be spent on TV and radio ads in the upcoming 2 months (before Christmas). Unfortunately, the tech-savvy voters who read online political discussions are not enough to win a state-wide election, even if they ALL break for Ron Paul. The older/less-connected voter must be introduced to the candidate and his message of freedom, peace, and respect for individual rights before Christmas.
Some people up-thread have commented that this is already in the works. If so, awesome.
Comment by TC — October 4, 2007 @ 1:11 pm