McCain has more cash than predicted

Second-quarter campaign reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show former GOP frontrunner John McCain with $3.2 million cash on hand – about $1.2 million above the $2 million that the campaign predicted would be reflected in the official report.

The final figures erase a significant talking point promoted by the campaign of long-shot candidate Ron Paul which, for the last three weeks, has argued that their candidate would have more money in the bank than McCain.

McCain, however, is not out of the financial woods. His campaign filings show $1.8 million in debt through the end of June while the Paul campaign reports zero debt. Paul has more “net worth” than McCain at this point although McCain has outraised Paul 8-1 and outspent the Texas Congressman by 10-1.

The reports do show McCain’s campaign, while crippled, is not yet dead and that Paul, along with other second tier candidates in both the Republican and Democratic parties, has a long way to go.

The Associated Press reports:

Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign spent more than it raised from April through June, leaving him financially strapped with $3.2 million cash on hand and a $1.8 million debt, according to a report filed Sunday with the Federal Election Commission.

Hindered by unpopular stands on the war and on immigration, McCain raised $11.26 million in the second quarter, short of his first quarter donations. He spent $13 million. Overall, McCain has raised $24.6 million so far in his campaign and spent $22 million.

McCain has raised $24.6 million through the end of June 30. Paul has raised just over $3 million. The latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, taken July 17-18, shows McCain tied with non-candidate Fred Thompson at 16 percent, trailing frontrunner Rudy Giuliani by 11 points. Paul lags far behind with 2 percent. Mike Huckabee leads the second tier candidates with three percent.

Gallop shows McCain, from July 12-15, in third place behind Giuliani and Thompson, and Paul leading the second tier with 3 percent.

The high level of buzz generated by the Paul campaign through the Internet has not yet translated into support in the public opinion polls. The Gallop numbers are a slight bump from earlier polls but Zogby’s latest poll (July 12-14) shows Paul dropping from 3 to 1 percent from March and McCain dropping from 13 to 9 percent for the same period.

American Research Group shows McCain dropping from 30 percent in March to 14 in July but Paul remaining constant at 1 percent.

22 Responses to "McCain has more cash than predicted"

  1. NH  July 21, 2007 at 8:45 pm

    Trouble is, McCain got literally NO votes in the first NH straw poll, Paul got 1200 people to the rally in Iowa when all the others combined had only 600 and Paul also had the MOST supporters (about 400) in the debates in NH…

    So that’s a good measure of popularity.

    I was working a booth today and NOT ONE person came by asking about McCain — well maybe ONE.

    I had scores asking about Paul!

  2. James  July 21, 2007 at 9:15 pm

    Dear Readers and Capitol Hill Blue,

    Has anyone working for CAPITOL HILL BLUE ever taken a basic philosophy 101 course …or maybe – at least – a course in logic?
    Articles of this type are so insidious …and so absurd!
    If any one in the editorial staff of CAPITOL HILL BLUE had ever taken a basic course in logic, you would appreciate that the numbers of PEOPLE supporting a candidate (presently at least) …much less the number of DOLLARS in their accounts sais little or nothing about the merits of their campaigns.
    Republicans PROFESS to be about smaller government, less spending and lower taxes. Of course, all of this would be nothing more than smoke and mirrors if the amount of money being borrowed – and printed – were not kept under check as well.
    It should be apparent to anyone paying attention that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate in the field – Republican or otherwise – who honestly give’s a rat’s behind about such things.
    People look to the media to provide them information on the MERITS of candidates. In response, the media supports its particular favorites by seeking to undermine the “credibility” of various campaigns (…like that of Ron Paul at present) by characterizing their campaigns as hopeless …as not having enough supporters or money …well before that is a relevant question.
    Such practices show an interst in the media to misguide the public by what is called the “bandwagon” effect and also by engaging in arguments which are guilty of “begging the question.”
    The “bandwagon effect” is directly related to that trait of human nature which makes us behave so much like sheep being herded to the slaughter. Sheep follow the crowd – even when the crowd is being herded into the butcher’s shop. Why should I care if a majority of my fellow citizens (presently, in any event) favor Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Romney …or Mr. McCain to Ron Paul? I don’t want more of this stupid war and the higher taxes and government spending that goes with it.
    The bandwagon effect SHOULD be familiar with any one who has ever had a half-way responsible parent: a parent who has ever challenged their attempts to justify their behavior on the basis that “all the other kids are doing it” by asking “Yes ..and if all the other kids were jumping off of a high cliff into shallow water – would you follow them there too?”
    We should not endorse the principles of this or that leader because a majority of our peers are more inclined to follow them…. we should only follow any given leader BECAUSE WE AGREE WITH HIS PRINCIPLES.
    Show me where ANY CANDIDATE in the field holds a candle to Ron Paul when it comes to recognizing a principle …much less following Ron Paul’s example of excellence in that arena!
    There are many political assets which Ron Paul has that John McCain will never be able to hold a candle to. For one: Ron Paul has never undermined the ability of the public to exercise their First Amendment Rights of Free Speech by supporting – or purchasing ADVERTISING on behalf of – any candidate in the name of “Campaign Finance Reform.” (As I hope you’ll remember: John McCain actually WROTE that bill!)
    Continue pretending to be “objective bystanders” if you wish: you are not …and that’s becoming more and more apparent.
    How many articles have you written on the number of members of Congress who refuse to participate in the Congressional pension plan? How many articles have you published on the members of Congress who return a portion of their salaries to the National Treasury? How many times in THIS article have you reported the number of people signed up for John McCain MEETUP GROUPS? Where have you reported the average contribution in dollars being given to the respective campaigns? Where have you reported the candidate who is receiving the most contributions from military families?
    Ron Paul has one political asset that is unparalleled among the candidates from any of the political parties at the present moment: CHARACTER AND PRINCIPLE.
    Here’s an idea for you: whoever wins the Presidency will have to take an oath to defend the Constitution before they can enter the Oval Office. Why don’t you have all of them take a quiz (…on the spot: no open books!) …and see how many of them even have a clue about the most salient points of the Constitution. I’ll bet we both know who would win THAT contest!

    In Liberty!,

    James Hines

    “Yes, Roper, I would give the devil benefit of law …FOR MY OWN SAFETY’S SAKE!”
    Thomas More as portrayed
    in Robert Bolt’s A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS

  3. SEAL  July 21, 2007 at 10:13 pm

    I never cease to be amazed at the myopic obsession people have with the presidency. As if all they have to do is place the right man in the White House and that will fix everything. I should think that the last few years would have demonstrated that it takes organiztion between the president and congress to accomplish anything.

    Look how easy it was for Bush to do whatever he wanted with a dominant core of loyal supporters ruling the majority republican party in congress. And remember how difficult it was for Clinton because his party was the minority. As disatisfied as we are with the results so far, you must admit that Bush is having a more difficult time now that the democrats have become the slight majority and will not be able to gain approval from them for any of his hairbrained schemes that require the approval of congress.

    When people vote they should be voting for an organization. Senators and congressmen who share the same ideals and goals as the president. To install a man like Ron Paul as president with the same type of congress we now have would be voting for nothing because that is what would be accomplished.

    You may notice that most of those running for congress attach themselves and declare their support for one of the presidential candidates or they espouse the same rhetoric which identifies them. It is highly unlikely that you could find any congressional candidates that would declare themslves in support of Ron Paul. They will look for the most likely to win candidate for president to attach themselves to because that enhances their chances for election.

    Those who cast the “disgused” votes for candidates with no possible chance of winning too often fail to visualize the impact of their actions. The last national election was a classic example with Nader pulling just enough votes away from Kerry to reelect GWB. In reality, they voted for Bush. People need to accept the fact that they are stuck with the choice of the lesser of evils and support that.

  4. ScottM  July 22, 2007 at 2:39 am

    Seal,

    Good points. And I think we all need to call congress and senate candidates (once they announce) and ask them questions that will help us determine if they will be compatible with the U.S. Constitution, free market principles, and individual liberties.

    This is important to do with all of them, but the U.S. Reps will be most important. Seal, you are correct. Ron Paul will not be king, for it is exactly the opposite of what he stands for. We must prepare to be fully educated on the legislative branch candidates. Make them KNOW what kind of government we are expecting from them if they want to hold office.

    Thanks so much for pointing that out.

    But, Seal, I will not ‘accept’ the lesser of two evils. If there is one positive thing that is getting accomplished each time, it is that these alternate, better candidates are getting more and more attention and gaining more and more votes each time. Eventually, they will not be ignored. Those that wanted to oppose GWB should have voted for the independent. The main reason they didn’t is because of the same ‘wasted vote’ myth that you espouse. If everyone that bought that line actually voted with their conscience instead, we would have fairer elections, better candidates, and a government with integrity.

    Your defeatist attitude (completely understandable) will be the ruin of this country. Will people still listen to this message when their neighbor’s families are drug out of their house and the father shot on the street in front of his children? That we must ‘just accept’ it? What about when ‘the radical muslims dominate the world’ (favorite fear-mongering neocon shrill call) are we just going to ‘accept’ it then? You do nothing, you deserve what you get.

  5. SEAL  July 22, 2007 at 4:42 am

    When I said the “lesser of two evils” I was referring to this upcoming election and the people involved in it because that is what our choices will be. And I was not esposing a defeatist attitude. Each election is different and the choices are different. I used the last election as an example of people not thinking it through and making the wrong choice by voting for Nader. They voted with their heart instead of their head.

    There was a reality when we all walked into the voting booth last time and it will be the same this time. What we need to do is change the reality. We need to start immediately when this election ends preparing for the next one. We should have some good choices this time but, if we use the next four years to locate and promote the right people, we could make a real impact in the following election. And on and on. Create a new reality with decent choices to make instead of having to settle for the lesser of the evils under the system we have now.

    It’s the same old story. We have to get involved. Not just for a couple of months every four years, but all the time. Otherwise, we will continue to have the lesser of the evils as our choice which is exactly what the upcoming election will be. That is the reality, not defeatism. We have a little more than a year before we vote again. There is not enough money to promote a relative unknown such as Ron Paul into a household name; to make him a real contender. That would require millions. That is another reality. Any time spent working for him would be wasted effort for this election and could possibly draw some voters away from the lesser of the evils as it did in the last election.

    There is no doubt that whoever the democrats choose to run will be the next president unless something drastic happens. I think our efforts would be best spent determining that choice by the democrats at the convention. That is the reality for this election.

  6. Bradley in DC  July 22, 2007 at 10:14 am

    By my reading of the FEC reports, McCain only has $117,000 in primary money minus debts (he has some general election funds he’s never going to need now).

    Ron Paul has $2.4 million in primary money minus debt which is more than all of the Republicans (except Romney and Giuliani) combined!

  7. ScottM  July 21, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    As I read this article, John McCain Ads are being displayed on both sides, theoretically making money for Doug.

    I guess the real answer is, until Ron Paul starts giving money to the media in the form of advertising, they are going to continue to write stories about other candidates and are going to be more favorable.

    I am not accusing Doug of putting these two ads here, but we know how it works. When you post an article, keywords are taken from it to customize the ads delivered. Write about Ron Paul and you don’t get high-commission ads (the PPC price is set by how relevant the ad is to the article, meaning a higher likely hood of click-throughs.)

    So, if we want the media to be more friendly to Ron Paul, we need to donate to Ron Paul so he get ads out there and brings money in for the media, because he isn’t going to create debt to do it!

    In free market economics we learn that companies don’t ever do anything out of good will. Your money is your vote.

  8. inibo  July 24, 2007 at 4:08 am

    “I never cease to be amazed at the myopic obsession people have with the presidency. As if all they have to do is place the right man in the White House and that will fix everything.”

    Perhaps, perhaps not. One man of principle in a House of 535 is not much. One man with a veto pen and the ear of the American people, now that’s a different story.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.-Amendment X

  9. Texas Little El  July 25, 2007 at 5:01 am

    http://journalisnt.com/content/view/31/26/

    Views expressed on Capitol Hill Blue maybe lies, distortions or outright libel.

    Reader beware.

    Just my opinion

  10. Bradley in DC  July 22, 2007 at 10:24 am

    Doug, saying a supporter says something or posts something is not the same as “the campaign” making it an official talking point. As you’re surely aware, Dr. Paul has many very enthusiastic supporters who are perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves.

  11. Doug Thompson  July 21, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    smttwngrl wrote:

    Having more cash was not a “talking point” of Ron Paul’s campaign. George Stephanopolis, in his interview with Dr. Paul, was the first to learn the dollar amoount of his donations in, and cash on hand at the end of, the 2nd quarter. It was Mr. Stepanopolis who said, “Why that’s more cash than John McCain has!” And it was repeated in various articles.

    Not true. Congressman Paul’s supporters began promoting the idea that his campaign would end the second quarter with more cash in the bank long before the appearance on the ABC Sunday talk show. It was promoted on posts on this web site and others. Free Market News on June 7 quoted sources that said the campaign expected to raise $4 to $5 million by the end of the second quarter. Predictions that the Paul campaign would have more cash on hand than McCain by the end of the second quarter began appearing on Ron Paul forums and other pro-Paul web sites before the ABC show as well. In addition, it became a more-often quoted talking point after the appearance.

    Again, it does not help your candidate to engage in the same kind of “spin” that marks other campaigns. That does nothing to differ him. If you want to help him, do so with facts that point out differences.

    The article above is a simple story stating of the facts of fundraising and polls at this point in the campaign. Fundraising is only part of the story. Public support is another indicator and until Congressman Paul’s poll numbers rise out of the single digit range or he wins an important primary he will be considered a second tier candidate.

    That’s a political fact of life.

    And quoting George Stepanopolis may not be the best thing to do either. Remember that Stephanopolis said “that’s not going to happen” when Congressman Paul talked about winning. While it was not an objective thing for an interviewer to say it is on the record in the same interview you quoted earlier.

    Our goal is to neither promote nor discredit the candidacy of Ron Paul. We report the facts and the facts are right now that Senator McCain ended the second quarter with more cash in the bank. Campaign debts may or may not ever be paid. Senator Ted Kennedy still owes debts from a failed Presidential campaign dating back to the 70s.

    –Doug

  12. inibo  July 21, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    Keep us honest, Doug, we need it or we are just another gaggle of political shills.

    I am pleased, though, that your tone seems a bit more restrained than in the past. I have great deal of respect for you and I, personally, do not dismiss your observations lightly. I also believe that eventually you will come to the conclusion that Paul, while still a politician and deserving of your merciless scrutiny (don’t ever change BTW, I wouldn’t love you any more if you did), represents something other than the lesser of two evils.

    While I know we are never going to be able to fit you with a tinfoil hat, and you will ever refuse our offers of this tasty Kool-Aid, I am confident enough that the very human heart beating under your cynical, world-weary shell is not immune to at least a glimmer of hope.

    Inibo


    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.-Amendment X

  13. Sematary  July 22, 2007 at 10:46 am

    In addition to fully agreeing with your comments, I notice that the writer did not mention, anywhere, that Ron Paul raised more individual donations from military members and veterans than ANY other candidate – Republican, or Democrat. I’m also certain that the writer hasn’t made himself aware that Ron Paul won a straw poll in New Hampshire. It would have also been to the benefit of the writer to research the fact that the reason the mainstream polls aren’t reflecting Ron Pauls support to this point is because the demographic that is supporting Ron Paul are very much not likely to be polled, period, by these organizations. A large number of his supporters don’t even own landlines and, it seems, an even larger number than that, never have voted before or have switched from another party to vote for him in the primaries. While neglecting to mention these pertinent facts, he also neglected to mention that Ron Paul has won or come in second in all of the post debate online polls – polls which the MSM expected someone else to win but when they didn’t, were marginalized or they claimed were spammed.

  14. swoodtn  July 21, 2007 at 10:29 am

    Why Discredit Candidates

    Like many Americans, I’m more interested in the upcoming presidential elections than ever before. With so much at stake in our own country as in the rest of the world, we are waking up to the sound of icebergs scraping the bow of our ship, while the Captain smiles and says, “its nothing to worry about, this is the United States of America, we’re unsinkable.”

    My biggest concern is that as a nation, we have forgotten that it is “We the People” who make up this great nation. We, collectively elect those who represent us and we each have a say in the direction and leadership of our once great nation. So why is it that reporters from coast to coast keep parroting such catch phrases as “First Tier, Second Tier, Long Shot, Fringe Candidate?”

    Are we to decide who is our next President based on how much money he or she has in the bank? Does money in the bank translate into great presidential leadership? Does the mainstream media have a responsibility to add to or take away from a candidate’s chances by building them up with hyperbole? Or to discredit them with negative adjectives describing the candidates?

    Why, when it was reported that Congressman Ron Paul raised more money in the second quarter than John McCain, did all major articles including yours, continue to describe him as second tier and Long Shot in his chances? He had passed the former front runner on the Republican side, yet he was discounted.

    When Iowans for Tax Relief excluded Congressman Ron Paul from their forum/debate his supporters showed up anyway. There were approximately 450-600 people at the official “sanctioned” event and there were over 1,200 at the impromptu event. This event was not only newsworthy, but significant as it was the largest political rally in Iowa so far and yet it was downplayed in the media coverage.

    As far as I’m concerned, We the People are tired of manipulative journalism. We the People demand to know the character of the man or woman seeking to guide this ship into safe waters once again. We the People have a right to choose someone who will keep the sacred oath that all Presidents have made in the past to “Defend the Constitution against all enemies, both Foreign and Domestic.”

    All we have to do is educate ourselves on the issues, sift through the commentary passed off to us as journalism and vote for the best man or woman based on our convictions.

    For me, there is only one candidate in this upcoming election who can honestly say that he has faithfully kept his sacred vow to uphold the constitution and that man is Congressman Ron Paul.

  15. gene  July 21, 2007 at 11:09 am

    In the above article “McCain has more cash than predicted”.

    BUT MUCH LESS FUNCTIONAL (BRAIN) CELLS THAN WAS INITIALLY THOUGHT. In fact we are somewhat sure he has no fully functional cells at all. Rest assured though, he will be the last to figure it out.

  16. Sandra Price  July 21, 2007 at 11:31 am

    As I wrote on Reader Rant, voting for Ron Paul may be the best vote we cast but it must not be the only vote. We must give the Congress Paul supporters or he will be useless. My Arizona House and Senate members are Social Conservatives and will never back Ron Paul if he wins.

    I will be starting a letter writing campaign as soon as the house and senate come back from vacations and I will demand that they set aside the social issues and get back to our individual freedoms with a possibility of a Paul win.

    Gene, in Arizona McCain is not a favored candidate. But if we can dig up some of the Goldwater spirit we might be able to get some work done.

  17. smtwngrl  July 21, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    Having more cash was not a “talking point” of Ron Paul’s campaign. George Stephanopolis, in his interview with Dr. Paul, was the first to learn the dollar amoount of his donations in, and cash on hand at the end of, the 2nd quarter. It was Mr. Stepanopolis who said, “Why that’s more cash than John McCain has!” And it was repeated in various articles.

    As for McCain having “more cash on hand than expected”, that also is misleading. Out of the $3.2 million cash on hand, not only does he have $1.8 million in debts, but $1.2 million is money that is for the general election only(and thus, cannot be used at all unless/until he wins the nomination). If all debts were due immmediately, he would have only $250,000 that he could actually use now.

  18. Bill Jonke  July 21, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    I guess it is true; come 2009, we’ll have as president the best man/woman money can buy.

    This is getting sick!

  19. Doug Thompson  July 21, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    Swoodtn wrote:

    Why, when it was reported that Congressman Ron Paul raised more money in the second quarter than John McCain, did all major articles including yours, continue to describe him as second tier and Long Shot in his chances? He had passed the former front runner on the Republican side, yet he was discounted.

    I’m afraid your facts are wrong. Congressman Paul did not raise more money in the second quarter than Senator McCain. McCain raised far more money and spent more. Paul has not yet “passed the former former front runner” in either fundraising or the polls.

    This kind of bloating of the facts does not help the Paul campaign. Instead it furthers the impression that those who support the Texas Congressman overstate their candidate’s support.

    If you want to help your candidate, do so with facts, no hyperbole.

    –Doug

  20. pskalterntate  July 21, 2007 at 2:59 pm

    Doug,

    Rumors on the internet in blogs and on small-time websites are not talking points of Ron Paul’s campaign.

  21. Doug Thompson  July 21, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    True enough but when the official campaign blog trumpets the cash on hand report and ABC telecast and the campaign, before the interview airs, sends out a news advisory urging reporters to watch the interview that qualifies as a talking point.

    BTW, Free Market News is not a blog. Are you calling sites like ronpaulforums.com a “small time website?” I’ve visited there and they seem both large and active in support of their candidate.

    –Doug

  22. pskalterntate  July 21, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    I never heard Ron Paul bring it up. It’s not much of a talking point if he never talked about it. But it doesn’t matter, even if he had, he would have been perfectly justified in doing so.

    What I really don’t like is the tone of Capitol Hill Blue’s description. The only time to describe something as a “talking point” is when you’re talking about someone you don’t like. People don’t describe arguments they support as “talking points”. It’s their subtle way of trying to make people associate Ron Paul with sleazy political tactics. “Talking point” is a negative term. Capitol Hill Blue obviously doesn’t like Ron Paul and this is their subtle way of trying to make him look bad.

    Fmnn.com is not part of his campaign and it openly was reporting rumors, and yes I’m calling ronpaulforums.com a small-time website.

Comments are closed.