Mitt Romney Raises $24,000,000 In Final Quarter Of 2011
The Mitt Romney campaign followed up last night’s big win with some big news about their fundraising:
Mitt Romney raised $24 million in the final months of 2011 and has plenty of money in the bank for the GOP primary campaign.
Romney’s campaign said in a news release that the former Massachusetts governor also has “over $19 million cash on hand” to wage his fight in early voting states for the Republican presidential nomination.
Romney, who has now won back-to-back victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, has raised more campaign cash than his GOP rivals but is well behind President Obama in the money race. His fourth-quarter haul means he’s raised over $56 million. The multi-millionaire also has not contributed personal funds or loaned his campaign money, something he did in his 2008 race.
“Mitt Romney’s growing financial support is representative of the growing momentum for our campaign,” Romney national finance chairman Spencer Zwick said in a statement. “In order to defeat President Obama in November, we will need this continued strong showing of support.”
The Boston Globe reports Romney meets today with his top fundraisers. He’s scheduled to do a fundraising event tomorrow in Florida, which holds its primary Jan. 31.
I believe Team Romney can count on a lot more money coming in very soon.
I will vote for the candidate that spends the least amount of money in the campaign: period, no other factors, qualifications, experience, past record, debates, speeches, promises, running mate, party, etc. will be an influence on my decision.
@Racehorse: @Racehorse: That’s exactly what I was thinking when I read this article.
We need somebody like this:
Notice his $100 donation limit. That’s the kind of candidate we must vote for to eliminate corruption.
We should be most worried about the consequences of special interest influence. For example, the banking deregulation and other policies that led to our current economic hardships resulted mainly from lobbying of both Democrats and Republicans.
The way some people talk about campaign finance makes it sound like it’s literally impossible for voters to consider a candidate who does not have tons of advertising and endorsements. That is not true, especially because voters can use Google to easily learn about all the available candidates, and give them equal consideration. But it will be impossible if voters don’t bother to look.
Many voters only consider the candidates placed right in front of them by the mainstream corporate-owned media, even though most of those candidates got the money to make themselves visible by taking legal bribes (campaign contributions) from organizations that seek some special benefit. And then they complain about how the politicians they elect answer to the interests whose money made those candidates visible. Candidates like Ron Paul, who attract lots of individual donors and don’t need special interest groups’ money, are the exception.
The most remarkable aspect of all this is how trivially easy it would be for voters to defeat the legalized corruption of campaign finance, if voters decided to act collectively across party lines. By looking at less publicized candidates, and rejecting out of hand any candidate who takes any form of influence buying, and supporting candidates who promise to give no benefit to super-PAC donors, we could render that influence money powerless.
Most voters would not vote for a candidate who had been convicted of political bribery, no matter how “electable” he/she is or what his/her policy positions are. So why vote for any candidate who accepts legal bribes in the form of special interest money?
It’s satisfying to deny consent to the existing system by voting that way, but that’s not the main motive.
Looking at http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/candidate.php?id=N00005906 it appears that Ron Paul doesn’t take special interest money. I will consider casting a protest vote for him instead of Roemer or a minor party candidate.