Skip to comments.Romney Lags in Small Donors as Big Givers Hit Limits [$77 Million mostly from high-dollar donors]
Posted on 03/08/2012 10:27:39 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
.....With an unusually large proportion of his donors already giving the maximum contribution allowed by federal law, Mr. Romneys campaign has made repeated appeals to grass-roots donors in recent days...
Mr. Romney has tacked a request for help onto the end of his stump speech in recent days, directing supporters to his Web site,...
........A spokeswoman said on Wednesday that Mr. Romney raised $11 million in February, bringing his total for the cycle to $77 million, much more than any other Republican in the race. But relatively little of it has come from small checks. Through the end of January, Mr. Romney raised about $6.4 million in unitemized contributions of under $200, just 10 percent of the money he had raised...
Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who has enjoyed a steady flow of grass-roots donations to his Web site, raised about $14.4 million in unitemized checks under $200, while Mr. Gingrich, who has a robust direct-mail operation dating back to his days in Congress, has taken in $8.8 million in such donations.
While Mr. Romneys overall small-dollar total exceeds that of Rick Santorum, his closest rival, Mr. Santorum had the best month for small donors of any of the Republican candidates in January, capitalizing on his belated victory in Iowa to raise $2.6 million in contributions under $200. Millions more followed Mr. Santorums triple victories in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota,..
Mr. Romney, who won in New Hampshire and Florida, took in just $1.2 million in small checks in January, suggesting that his steady accumulation of votes and delegates has not been accompanied by the sort of enthusiasm that yields spurts of grass-roots money.
The lack of small donations is one financial challenge facing the campaign. Another is spending:....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ohh the GOPe Pick is having money troubles....
Karl says so. /s
Then there is PAC $$$$:
“Of the nearly $37 million raised by the super PAC supporting Romney, Restore Our Future, over $4.85 million 13 percent of the total came from people who own luxury homes in Pitkin County.”...
I imagine the non-folding, conservative base is really getting under the skin of the GOP-e.
We hear about the “lesser” candidates getting that “evil” PAC money, but Mitt’s PACs (like Obama’s fundraising) is just fine and dandy.
“Them richers sure do stick togather.” (Tip of the hat to South Park)
And be expected to pay for his general election campaign, after he and his PACs have burned though $100+ Million tearing down conservative candidates.
Boggles the mind, doesn’t it?
My dream would be for Allen West to step forward and offer up a conservative, third-party option if Romney is the GOP nominee.
Romney is going to lose in a landslide. As such, there’s no better time to field-test an alternative to the stale GOP.
America's economic greatness is rooted in our free market capitalism. Romney intends to remake our country along the lines of European socialism, with burdensome regulations and crippling restraints on the unfettered free market.
Those who have done will financially are often well-educated and quite intelligent. It's unfathomable how those who have fared so well would support anyone who seeks to dismantle the economic core of America, a country that has so abundantly blessed them. The well-to-do are aligning themselves with the OWS thugs and union goons by supporting any leftist, whether it be Romney or Obama.
Why are those who have succeeded forming an alliance with their enemies?
$77M (Romney) + $37M (Restore our Future)
$114,000,000 divided by 419 delegates = $272,076.372 (Like the return on stimulus $$$$)
Romney better get crackin'. He needs 1144 delegates to win. That could run into "real" money.
Just plain dumb.
TRUE CONSERVATIVES want regulations rolled back.
The establishment and the Party Boys want Mitt, let them fund, work, and support him. I’m done with all this we come together as a party BS. 2010 senate races in Delaware and Alaska show that party loyalty is a one way street with the establishment and Party Boys.
It will be hilarious watching the establishment and Party Boys trying to work an election without the base. Are they going to hire people to do their work, yeah boy you got some real enthusiastic supporters there making minimum wage.
Quite simply if—if Romney gets the nomination, the establishment and Party Boys will be damned lucky-damned lucky if they manage to even secure my vote much less anything else.
The producers/job-creators who have done so well in America, the land of opportunity ought to be the most Conservative among us. They're hurt the most by anti-business, stifling regulations such as the EPA, the archaic, anti-liberty minimum wage laws and the thuggery of big labor.
Yet these very smart people defy their own innate intelligence by supporting Mitt Romney, a big government guy. The world has gone crazy in that regard. The producers are on the side of the looters!
Even the Koch Brothers have betrayed their own interests with large donations to the Romney SuperPAC. Thank goodness for genuine American Patriots such as Sheldon Adelson who backs the real Conservative in the race, Newt Gingrich.
Translation: Mitt Romney’s donations are solely that of special interests, with very few personal donations from individual citizens. This alone should be reason enough for any reasonable person to steer clear of Romney.
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Because they're poor in spirit (giggles).
Also, they're either social liberals or they're trying to protect their image and not look like a greedhead. You can see this in Romney himself. Earlier in the campaign he said he couldn't talk about cutting taxes because he's rich, and it would look bad. It's regional too. The richer areas of the country are usually the most liberal ones. And nothing defines more every aspect of what you'll be like more than the people around you. Also, higher education tends to turn people liberal due to brainwashing, and those people tend to be wealthier.
If the donors are actually acting rationally, then they're probably looking for a specific payout from Mitt in the form of favorable government policy. So if the rest of the country suffers economically, they'll still be okay. Keep in mind he's been the frontrunner for a while, so some people are just backing him because they expect him to win and want to lay the groundwork for a good business relationship with the future prez. It worked out great for the Solyndra guys.
I bet that most of those donations under $200 came from members of the LDS church.
Koch PAC donated to the DCCC, DSCC, and the Obama Campaign during 2008 and 2010, as well as McCain and the GOP. They also donated to Tom Barrett’s Wisconsin Governor’s campaign in 2010.
Koch donated to most GOP candidates, including Romney and Gingrich. It is the way the game is played.
Thank you for a very well-reasoned and comprehensive response. All of the points you make are sound and logical.
The only area where our opinions might diverge just a bit deals with geography and wealth. I contend that the richer areas of America are where freedom reigns with Right to Work laws as depicted in this map (Indiana has yet to be updated):
Those regions where union goons are held in check are among the more prosperous parts of America. Likewise, they tend to be the most Conservative. Pro-business places such as Texas are where the wealth and job producers don't have to fight burdensome regulations and engage in warfare against the anti-business tactics of the Big Labor thugs.
By the way, the image on your home page is superb. It really demonstrates what the 2012 election is all about.
Mittens lacks in small donors and voters while the elitist are crazy about him. Is there a connection there? ;)
A PAINFULLY obvious one!