Funding a Campaign Matters
A lot of press and talk are made of some candidate's ability to bring in funding, break quarterly records, raising millions of dollars with ease. Where that funding comes from matters. How fast you have to spend it matters. That pace of fundraising comes with very bad long-term implications.
First, let us dispel the "60% of my donors are female". According to OpenSecrets, only 50.2% are female. A far cry from 60. HRC only has 17% of her donors in the "less than $200" range. Based on current data on OpenSecrets, funds collected from total donations under $1,000 represents only 9% of all donations.
Of all donors to her campaign so far (based on current data) 63% of current donors have already donated the legal limit for the primary, 54% of total current donors are well are their way to giving the legal maximum for both the primary and general.
Based on data from OpenSecrets, she has already spent 57% of all monies raised. Based on projection models, given the small donor pool of those giving less than $1000, that 63% of previous donors have no more to give, that 54% of total current donors have given all they can give in the primary and are well on their way to giving all they can give in both the primary and general, her pool of tapable funds is shrinking fast. Her ability maintain this level of campaign infrastructure is an unsustainable model.
She will end up being very beholden to her 24 SuperPACs for advertising and issues marketing.
That is the worry about dark money and the influence of unlimited cash.
= new reply since forum marked as read
