Fred takes in more than $8 million in 3Q fundraising
posted at 10:11 am on October 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
No one’s saying yet how much more, but we’ll know soon.
CBS News reporter John Bentley reports that Thompson has raised over $8 million in the third quarter, according to Deputy Communications Director Karen Hanretty. The official numbers will be released soon, but Hanretty declined to speculate how much more than $8 million the campaign has raised.
While that number is expected to be lower than his GOP rivals, it eclipses the $5 million number Thompson’s camp had been floating over the past few days.
Thompson will also report raising $3.5 million in June before the third quarter began, CBS News reports.
Mitt reportedly earned $10 million and kicked in another $6-7 million of his own dough. I’m ignorant about all things fundraising but since Fred didn’t declare until September, isn’t the money he earned this quarter before the date of the announcement unusable for campaign purposes? That was the subject of the FEC complaint filed against him by one of the nutroots in August:
The blogger, Lane Hudson, submitted his complaint to the Federal Election Commission on Monday saying Thompson has raised far more money than he needs to explore whether to run for president…
The law prohibits anyone who is “testing the waters” from hoarding the money for use during his actual campaign. Potential candidates also cannot refer to themselves as candidates, can’t run ads that publicize their intention to campaign or take steps to qualify for the ballot in a primary or caucus state.
Does that mean Fred earned $8 million this month, which would be, er, rather impressive or does that mean he earned $8 million since July but only about a third or so of it is available for the campaign? Or does it mean something else? I’ll have updates here in a bit.
Update: The Paulnuts raised a cool mil for America’s Greatest Patriot in just seven days.
Update: Since this is, after all, Fred’s first quarter of fundraising, NBC compares his numbers to the first-quarter totals for Rudy McRomney and finds them wanting. Not really fair. The campaign season was still fresh in January and donors had money to burn. Now the fatigue has set in and they’ve already peeled off a few bills so they’re cutting back.
Still, if Team Thompson was banking on some huge reservoir of Republican donors who’d been holding back to open the floodgates upon his entrance, they’re getting a rude awakening.
Here’s something to compare Thompson’s money to: the 1st Q numbers of his three main rivals: Romney raised 21.2M; Giuliani raised 16.6M; McCain raised 13M.
By comparison, Fred’s $7-8M (or even $10 million) this quarter is not great. NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell reports that sources say Fred Thompson will report in excess of $8 million, but would not say if the campaign breaks the $10 million mark in his campaign’s first FEC filing. More specifically, advisors say Thompson has 70,000 individual donors, which they claim describe as “a huge signal of grassroots support.” About one quarter of the money raised comes from online donors. And since his formal announcement day in early September, advisors claim they have raised 200-thousand dollars a day.
Advisors acknowledge the third-quarter filing may be “a little less than” Giuliani, but they claim their fundraising makes Thompson “competitive.” They claim to “feel good.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
That’s my boy!
I have to Fred already. I’m going to give him some more this month. Every conservative should be voting for this guy. He is the real deal.
msipes on October 1, 2007 at 10:28 AM
I’m too young to vote, so donations are my only options.
aclark on October 1, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Yes, I would guess that is exactly what it means…….Fear the Fred…..csdeven eat your heart out….
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Someone starts a countdown about csdeven in 5…4…3…
MadisonConservative on October 1, 2007 at 10:36 AM
How much of those donations came from his buddies the Libyan terrorist from Lockerbee?
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 10:37 AM
$8 million!!! That’s alot of cash to funnel to his son…
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Fat cat lobbyist always know where the ca$h is
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Fred knows how to manipulate CFR, because he wrote it…
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 10:39 AM
A an unthinking, crap slewing stooge for who?
AZCON on October 1, 2007 at 10:50 AM
If Fred has trouble navigating campaign finance laws, he has only himself and his buddy John McCain to blame.
It’s kinda like Bill Clinton getting charged with sexual harassment after “championing” the issue.
Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Dude… what does that even mean?
DaveS on October 1, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam. Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Spam spam spam spam!
Aww… the RINOs are so cute when they’re angry and desperate.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 11:10 AM
In the immortal words of Hedley LaMarr. “Gentlemen, rest your sphincters.”
Fred is going to win this thing. I smell some momentum…
Dr. Gecko on October 1, 2007 at 11:12 AM
LOL…..(csdeven must have a son)…
The entire Fred! agrument will be over after the debate. Either he will be on top of the list, or off it.
Limerick on October 1, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Quite possibly true, however keep in mind that Fred started out as a trial lawyer, a successful one at that. You do not get to be a successful trial lawyer if you cannot debate in public. csdeven and tommylotto have much to fear from the Fred…….
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Does the 8 million include the money he made lobbying for abortion groups and asbestos manufacturers?
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Yawn……only a lawyer could be this intellectually dishonest…
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 11:23 AM
What you have to consider is, yeah, he only raised 8 mill, but as with all things Fred, he did it without trying very hard.
km on October 1, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Awww … how cute. Mitt Romney posting comments under a puppet name on HotAir.
Gregor on October 1, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Here’s a better comparison: Where did all that money get them?
They don’t have all that money sitting in a vault somewhere; Giuliani spent most of his funds on bootstrap fundraising; McCain is bankrupt; and Romney has had to “loan” himself extra money.
Forget the first quarters, add up all the money all the other candidates have spent in the past 9 months; then divide it by the poll numbers it’s gotten them so far. Giuliani and McCain have been slowly hemorraging the lead all that “Front Runner” campaign coverage gave them a year ago. Romney blew $2300 a vote on a straw poll and got a two-day bounce out of it – if his contributions (and/or personal “loans”) were multiplied by a factor of ten, that STILL wouldn’t be enough to buy the nomination.
OK, I’ll freely admit that Fred Thompson’s fundraising got off to a slow three weeks. But look at the RESULTS.
(BTW, that graph is all the polls averaged together; if you look at likely primary voters, Thompson already has a slight lead. And if you look at self-described “most conservative” voters, Thompson is pushing a double-digit lead.)
logis on October 1, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Actually, Tommylotto is a Rudy guy. He apparently likes the tactics of the Mittsaken ones so much that he’s willing to emulate them.
We need to stop trying to eat our own. Rudy’s a great guy, but he’s liberal. Thompson’s a great guy and he’s conservative.
Mittster is a conservative as well, but he isn’t going to be the nominee with less than 10 percent on his side.
I’m for Fred. I think he can win it all.
We need to keep the sights on Hillary. She’s getting a pass so far because of our political cannibalism. So Fred only made $8 million in a month. If his candidacy is solvent, there’s no problem. If the ticket were for sale, Mitt and Rudy would be tied for the top.
Another issue without merit, IMHO.
Tennman on October 1, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that Fred! doesn’t have to advertise as much as the others. Every time he blinks the MSM trots out another (unsuccessful) hit piece, further raising his profile.
While everyone else is pounding their ‘message’ down the uncaring throat of the electorate he’s laying back and waiting for the right time. When everyone’s sick to death of the endless pandering he’ll swoop in with a tight, coherent message that doesn’t annoy or belittle folks.
KCSteve on October 1, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Then why is John Edwards lagging third? He is much smoother than Fred.
I kind of doubt Fred’s defense of white collar criminals and personal injury suits (didn’t Edwards do that as well?) will help him in the debates much unless he can channel Goldwater or Reagan from the beyond….wait Edwards has done that as well in the past.
Bradky on October 1, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Don’t Stop Believing by Journey
Bradky on October 1, 2007 at 1:01 PM
No. Do Rudy’s totals include the money he made trying to save murderers from the death penalty and lobbying for Chavez and the Saudis?
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Huh? Every time Edwards opens his mouth he embarrasses himself.
Gregor on October 1, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Even if it amounts to $8 million since August. That amounts to about $1 a week, sustained over 2 months.
Beat that, you Pauloons!
Oh, and keep blowing that family fortune Mutttttt.
omnipotent on October 1, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Happy to oblige…
BKennedy and csdeven are waiting for the IMs from the Romney and Giuliani campaigns (respectively). They’ll be along in 5..4..3..
steveegg on October 1, 2007 at 1:25 PM
oopps….that $1 million a week……
omnipotent on October 1, 2007 at 1:27 PM
oopps….that $1 million a week……
omnipotent on October 1, 2007 at 1:27 PM
It’s $8 million since July, with something north of $4 million rolling in since the announcement:
I am not an election lawyer, but I think the rest of that money will be usable as well.
As for comparisons to the other front-runners and McCain, if memory serves, they all made their campaigns official early in the 1st quarter of campaigning.
steveegg on October 1, 2007 at 1:29 PM
I thought that was BKennedy’s son myself.
steveegg on October 1, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Heh heh heh what do you think the family amassed that fortune for?
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Tithing?!?
omnipotent on October 1, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Hmmmm, could be……..First Mormon President? JFK family fortune spend electing the first Catholic President?!? See any similarities there???
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Maybe those “sacred undergarments” are hella expensive…
and let’s not forget the cost of his sons’ tour of
dutythe USA.omnipotent on October 1, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Whatever the number is, it is just more money he can pass on to his family!
Just wait for the troll to show up – then you will get the true story about FRED!! and campaign financing.
Sarcasm intended!
OBX Pete on October 1, 2007 at 3:05 PM
I’ll be honest here, I really don’t care a bit about campaign finance issues. Not a bit. I just don’t. I don’t even care that Hillary had dirty money from Hsu(I care that she’s evil enough to have dirty money, mind you). Money doesn’t win elections. You can argue until your blue in the face about it. But it won’t matter. The truth is, it doesn’t win elections. Sorry.
Vaporman87 on October 1, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Uh oh- I hope this doesn’t cause too many troll anuerisms:
Why Thompson Will Win
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 3:49 PM
You know what they say about opinions… Apparently Dick Morris has one too
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Congratulations! You are the 10th person on the planet Earth who takes Dick Morris seriously!
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 4:12 PM
W00t w00t…great link…great article…hope it causes many heads to explode…..
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 4:38 PM
I don’t think the ‘tards even care that Dick Morris is a flaming liberal. But, of course…
HE IS ON TV!!!
And that’s all that matters. I call it pundit-itus. If these guys were JUST idiots, they’d be coming up with pretty much random criticisms: “Fred Thompson’s mustache is too orange, or his stilts are crooked,” etc….
But they don’t. Instead they all individually come up with the exact same insanely idiotic complaints, like he started too late. Well, who in the Hell came up with that brand spanking new “common sense” in the first place?
And is it a coincidence these same feebs keep saying that the world rises and sets around the addlebrained excuses for “debates” which accomplish nothing except generating puerile soundbites for the pundits to endlessly re-hash? Of course not; no real person cares. But pundits LIVE for this kind of stuff; ergo, so do the people who live to hear the pundits.
It’s the same as sports. There are always the loudmouthed idiots who’ve never been to a game, but voraciously absorb and regurgitate every word they hear the announcers say. And the less they know, the louder and more often they feel the need to repeat whatever they’ve heard most often.
The really scary thing is, it looks like some of the competitors in the politcal arena are actually taking the advice of their Marv Alberts. And man, it’s safe money betting against anybody who’s that clueless.
logis on October 1, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Fred took in more than $8 million. $365 million more than $8 million in fact…
Kevin M on October 1, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Say what???
Link please…..
omnipotent on October 1, 2007 at 5:39 PM
My personal favorite was the pundit who decared that Thompson only had one week after he announced to make a name for himself, because after that it would be too late.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Sorry, I do not see anybody in the top 4 that I want to support. I voted for Bush only to be disappointed in almost every thing that he does. The only thing he did right (after almost screwing up) was in appointing the two federal judges. I support the war against terrorism/Iraq but not the way they have gone about it. It looks as if they are finally doing the right thing in Iraq for the last few months.
For our next President I am NOT going to vote for a person just because I think he is the better of two evils. I must be comfortable that he will do the right things. Again sorry but Rudy/Fred/Mitt/John do not cut it for me. I am not going the same mistake as with our last President.
SIJ6141 on October 1, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Hello there, Mr. Irrelevant. Which also-ran do you support then?
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 6:57 PM
So you are going to vote for Hillary, good for you, now don’t let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 7:14 PM
That’s a bit unfair- I’m guessing we’ve been visited by a Ronbot, though they usually make it very obvious that RON PAUL is the only man who can save America!!!11!!1!
If I’m wrong, a Duncan Hunter supporter is my second choice- I’d back Hunter over Rudy, Romney or McCain, but given how ineffectual his campaign has been he’s pretty much a dead horse at this point.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 7:25 PM
The truth cares not one wit for what it “FAIR” it is what it is…….
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Derrrr…….The truth cares not one wit for what is “FAIR” it is what it is…….
Got to learn to use that dad burned preview button.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Hunter has all the principles that I support but I know that you people cannot look past Rudy/Fred. Neither of them is a true conservative. At the end one o0f them will be the candidate and most probably I’ll make the same mistake as with Bush. I just wish I have a better choice.
SIJ6141 on October 1, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Politics (as well as life) is NEVER perfect and is all about making the best with what is available at any given time.
Hell, I’d love to mix and match the best characteristics of various GOP candidates to make a “Super Candidate” but I live in the real world (sky is blue) not Ron Paul’s.
omnipotent on October 1, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Politics (as well as life) is NEVER perfect and is all about making the best with what is available at any given time.
omnipotent on October 1, 2007 at 8:27 PM
That is not to say you have to shut up and be happy about it.
SIJ6141 on October 1, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Guessed it on my second choice at least.
Quite a few of us are unhappy with who turned out to be the top 4 candidates, but reality is reality. Hunter is a conservative who would probably make a good president (though he goes too far on some social issues- leave Internet poker alone!).
However, nominating a candidate who would almost certainly loose serves the conservative cause not one bit. You can blame the media, the early primary campaign, bloggers or whomever all you like, but the fact remains that he just hasn’t run a good campaign for whatever the reason, plus he wasn’t very inspiring in the debates, even if his message was on target.
When a conservative with no major skeletons in the closet can’t muster more than 2% support amongst Republicans, there’s no other way around it. He has 1/3 the support Huckabee does, and Huckabee was no more well known than Hunter.
Fred ain’t perfect, but if you look beyond the headlines, read what he’s written and review his record, I don’t think any reasonable person could conclude that he’s not a conservative, though perhaps not the hard core social con that some would prefer. Then again, Bush is solidly socially conservative, but I think we’d agree that he’s not represented conservative values well at all.
If life were fair, Hunter, Huckabee and Thompson would be the front-runners, but it wasn’t to be, and nothing is going to change that.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Look closely at that article. Like all Fredhead talking point memos, the first half is spent talking about the competition. Not, why Fred should be elected President, but why the other guys shouldn’t. That, of course, by process of elimination, leaves Fred as the only man alive to be President. Then he references Dick Morris’ article merely to dismiss it without addressing any of the serious points raised in it. Then he admits that Fred has never ran anything, but he dismisses that criticism because we are not electing a “manager in chief”, whatever the heck that means. Then he claims Fred is smarter than a guy named “Ponnuru”, as if that is supposed to impress me. Then he criticizes the other candidates again and finishes with a flourish about Fred’s voice and folky style. I kept waiting for the money shot when he explains why Fred is qualified to be President. I’m still waiting.
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Bitching or sitting out an election ain’t exactly “taking the bull by the horns” now is it?
If you don’t know who Ramesh Ponnuru is, then it’s NO surprise that Rino Rudy is your guy.
omnipotent on October 1, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Good news: nobody cares whether or not you’re happy. And, thanks to the miracle of the Internet, you can scream in public like a colicky baby pretty much indefinitely.
But I’m not buying any of this Dunkin Hunter, Mitt Romney noise. You guys are just pulling names out of hats. There is only one Only Man Who Can Save America. And all of his supporters sound exactly the same to me.
logis on October 1, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Unlike yourself of course, who spams dishonest one-liners about why Fred shouldn’t be the nominee without mentioning why your favorite RINO Rudy should.
But yeah- a lot of us aren’t happy with Rudy, Romney or McCain, so that pretty much leaves one front-runner left now, doesn’t it?
And seriously- “a guy named Ponnuru”??? You should, like, read more. What next- “a guy named Buckley”?
Hollowpoint on October 2, 2007 at 1:19 AM
That was meant to be humorous… The point I was making was that the only thing that Mulhern could find that commends Fred for the job was that Fred sounded impressive talking federalism with a fellow conservative. That might be impressive for high school debate class but in that arena, Rudy is in a totally different class. Rudy has matched wits with the likes of Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken while fortunes were on the line. Then he crossed the likes of Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno, Paul “Big Paul” Castellano, Carmine “Junior” Persico, Anthony “Tony Ducks” Corallo, and Philip “Rusty” Rastelli — the bosses of the five families — when a lot more than money was on the line. Rudy has a long and established history of matching wits with some of the most intelligent and ruthless criminal minds of the 20th century, while Fred discusses federalism with Ponnuru or goes after low hanging fruit like Michael Moore.
Rudy was right about Fred, he did a good job playing Rudy for Hollywood.
tommylotto on October 2, 2007 at 7:44 AM
Sorry about that prior posts, I know that you cannot explain why Rudy is a good nominee without saying “9/11 leadership and turning around NYC” but this is a Fred thread and it would be unfair to compare accomplishments.
Didn’t Fred help catch a Russian sub during the Cold War?
tommylotto on October 2, 2007 at 7:51 AM
Question Hollowpoint: How does it strike you that Fred Thompson fought hard and long for a bill that says you can’t mention your much-hated “gun grabbers” like Guiliani by name in an ad if it is too close to the primary or the general?
Quite frankly, Fred is radioactive and his star power isn’t getting him anywhere. Fred should have waited longer. If he announced as a Christmas present in December, he might have been able to coast.
BKennedy on October 2, 2007 at 8:05 AM
Fred leads in South Carolina.
Yup, he’s sunk alright.
omnipotent on October 2, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Comment pages: