Is Mitt Romney really ahead in the money race?

Mitt Romney has raised more millions in May and June than has Obama. But Obama, who did not have to spend big to win the nomination, has a lot more cash on hand for the fight ahead.

Charles Dharapak/AP/File, Carolyn Kaster/AP/File
Has Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney raised more campaign money than President Barack Obama?

Mitt Romney has raised more campaign money than President Obama for two months in a row. In May, Mr. Romney and the Republican National Committee brought in $17 million more than did Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee. In June, that gap widened to $35 million, as Romney and the RNC raked in a total of $106 million, while Obama took in $71 million.

For the Romney campaign, this is great news. It appears that Wall Street donors are flocking back to the Republican banner, after a 2008 election cycle in which many financiers supported Obama. The presumptive GOP nominee and his allies appear well on their way toward their goal of an $800 million campaign war chest – a cash cushion that might enable them to outspend their opponents in the 2012 struggle for the White House.

But the overall money picture is a bit more complicated than the headline “Romney Outdoes Obama in Fundraising” indicates.

For one, the campaigns did not start their general election money race from the same point. Romney has had to fight his way through a tough primary season, with all the spending that entails. Obama has been able to save up, waiting for his election moment.

Just look at the data from the invaluable OpenSecrets website of the Center for Responsive Politics to see what we mean.

At the end of May – the latest date for which all details are in – the Obama campaign by itself had about $109.6 million in cash on hand. The Romney campaign had much less money at its disposal: about $17 million, according to CRP.

This edge has enabled Obama to buy large blocks of airtime early in swing states such as Ohio, hammering Romney on his Bain Capital years, and so forth. Obama’s cash-on-hand lead may quickly dissipate, as Romney raises money and Obama spends. There’s some question whether early ad spending will make much difference in November. But at this point Obama leads in the spending race, and in the end it is spending, not fundraising per se, that may make a difference at the polls.

Plus, Romney’s campaign through the end of May was less efficient in its cash accumulation than was its Democratic counterpart.

Through May, about 25 percent of Romney’s expenditures went to fundraising expenses. The corresponding figure for Obama? Five percent.

The disparity here isn’t quite as big as it seems – Obama’s percentage is lower partly due to the fact that his total amount of expenditures has been greater. But again, the most important thing in politics is not how much money you get, but how much you have to spend on ads, get-out-the-vote organizations, and so forth. Cash laid out to set up dinners for high rollers is cash you don’t have available to spend in Ohio on attack ads.

None of this means Romney won’t end up on top in the overall money wars. What it does mean is that the situation may not be as simple as the press releases of both sides suggest. Romney trumpets his fundraising successes as evidence of his electoral appeal. Team Obama talks about Romney’s cash as a means to try to motivate Democratic donors.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.