$34 Million for the Ron Paul Prez Campaign

The latest financial disclosure forms indicate that more than $34 million has been raised by and for the Ron Paul campaign for president.  The campaign has spent more than $28 million. The campaign had $5.5 million on hand at the end of February.

The Paul campaign also filed a disclosure listing more than 2500 itemized expenses.  Details are available here.

I have not sifted through all the details.  Looks like the ads the campaign ran were expensive to produce, regardless of their impact.

If folks are inclined to check out the data, I’d be interested what they might surmise from the reports.

Also, if anyone is aware of analyses or breakdowns of the Paul campaign expenditures, I’d appreciate seeing the links to ’em.


, ,

10 Responses to $34 Million for the Ron Paul Prez Campaign

  1. Jean April 1, 2008 at 7:16 pm #

    Hello Jim. I went thru the first page of the expenses, and for the most part, the campaign did try to minimize expenses. I noticed alot of McDonalds, and Dunkin Donuts, and other fast food establishments.
    I agree with the ad campaign, it did seem a bit much, and the impact wasn’t strong. In New Hampshire, if McCain won the anti-war vote, that speaks volumes.

    Jim, in this area, I have no idea of how to calculate the amount of time and money, but it would be interesting to know how much of the grassroots spent on putting up signs, and walking neighborhoods etc. I know my meet up group did many walks thru my city of Portland here, and passed out lots of brochures, and other information.

    Even though the campaign seems to have not the desired impact as I would have like to see, the recent bubble burst in real estate and Fed acting as banker to Wall St may wake up people. Let’s hope so.
    However, I think some seeds have been planted in peoples minds, and this maybe a start in breaking up this monopoly the Remocrats have in DC. Let’s hope so for the future generations.

  2. badmedia April 1, 2008 at 9:34 pm #

    Can’t really discuss this, without referring to the McCain-Feingold laws. I myself donated the max, and would have donated more if I was able to.

    In effect, all the McCain-Feingold law did was put even more power in elections into the hands of the media. By limiting the amount of money people can donate, it means the mainstream media is the only real way to get a message out these days.

    Ads are expensive, and the amount of money allowed to be donated just doesn’t come close to comparing with candidates who get mentioned on the news multiple times a day for free.

    And oddly enough, here we have a nominee who’s name appears on the election laws bill, and who was doing so poorly in volunteers and support he had to get financing. Is that not an odd coincidence to anyone?

    So to say Ron Pauls ads didn’t have an impact, is to say that the other candidates ads did. Which really just isn’t true. The difference was simply Ron Paul was ignored and ridiculed and never given a fair chance by the media.

  3. Jim April 1, 2008 at 10:48 pm #

    Jean – I agree that the Paul campaign has helped open some minds.

    My first glance at the financial statement gave me the same impression that you had. On the other hand, it is hard to spend $28 million at Dunkin Donuts & McDonalds. Hopefully there will be some solid analysis of these reports out there soon.

    The grassroots campaign for Paul was superb. So many fine folks around the nation volunteering their time and picking up the tab for signs and so many other things… They seemed to achieve far more visiblity than did the formal campaign in many places.

  4. Jim April 1, 2008 at 10:53 pm #

    “BadMedia” – I agree that McCain-Feingold is a dreadful law that boosts the media’s clout.

    As for the Ron Paul ad campaign – it would be different if the campaign had not had the money to make and run good ads. But folks donated $34 million.

    The money was there to do some great media hell-raising. Didn’t happen.

    And I remain puzzled about why the campaign ignored numerous invitations from prominent talk show hosts for Paul to appear.

  5. Mace Price April 2, 2008 at 12:41 am #

    …Doctor Paul should challenge Cornyn or Hutchinson for a GOP Texas seat in The US Senate…Given the money, recognition and legitimacy his Presidential Campaign has now earned him, he just might upset one.

  6. Dirk W. Sabin April 2, 2008 at 8:30 am #

    After a quick perusal of the stats, the only thing I can add is that if this boy don’t stay out of chain restaurants, he gonna be dead pronto. I know it’s awful hard to find anything beyond the chain eatery blightage along the nation’s highways but damn, there is enough Taco Bell offal here to kill one’s taste buds off for good. Then again , is there a subtle message about a crypto reconquista movement here? Please, Dr. Paul, for your own good, pack a lunch

  7. D. Saul Weiner April 5, 2008 at 9:49 am #

    I don’t know how much they cost, but I do know that the campaign did pay for an enormous number of campaign signs and campaign literature (e.g. slimjims, as they called them), having volunteered at one of the campaign offices. Whether these materials did any good is an open question. Unfortunately, even the slimjims played down his antiwar stance, for the more part. The literature mostly emphasized how conservative Paul was, though most self-identified conservatives today did not buy this line since they equate conservatism with being prowar, especially pro WOT.

  8. Jim April 5, 2008 at 12:50 pm #

    That’s an excellent point about the Paul campaign skirting the war issue. I noticed the same thing in the campaign literature and tidbits I saw.

    There was a giant well of discontent on the war out there, but the Paul campaign apparently did not want to drill hard on that turf.

  9. Greg April 16, 2008 at 11:28 pm #

    The best idea to get the big media’s clout out of the political system is to, by a fair system, require them to advertise political campaigns for free to obtain their FCC license. That should be their investment in the democratic process and the freedom of speech they are quick to defend. Without this, money is the only determining factor for our representation in our government. If they tell you it would hurt them financially, look at all the news channels, politics is all they talk about anyway but only what they decide is to be broadcasted. Common sense change is the only way we can get true representation in our government.


  1. freedomsadvocate.com » Blog Archive » Ron Paul in the News…Daily Digest 4/01/2008 - April 2, 2008

    […] $34 Million for the Ron Paul Prez Campaign By Jim The latest financial disclosure forms indicate that more than $34 million has been raised by and for the Ron Paul campaign for president. The campaign has spent more thanp $28 million. The campaign had $5.5 million on hand at the end of … BOVARD – http://jimbovard.com/blog […]