Obama Raises $86 Million For Campaign, DNC

The President’s first quarterly fundraising report was pretty darn good, and pretty much dwarfs what Republicans raised:

President Barack Obama collected $86 million combined for his re-election campaign and the Democratic party during the past three months, giving him a large fundraising advantage over the Republican field seeking to challenge him in 2012.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a video posted early Wednesday that it raised more than $47 million and the Democratic National Committee brought in more than $38 million through the end of June, building a foundation for advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts in next year’s election. Obama’s team had set a public goal of $60 million combined.

As expected, the fundraising totals outpace Republicans, who have collectively raised about $35 million so far, although some candidates have yet to release their results. At the same time in 2007, 10 GOP presidential hopefuls had raised more than $118 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

While not decisive, this money gap is going to give Obama and the Democrats tremendous advantages going forward.


FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, US Politics, , , , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug Mataconis held a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020. He passed far too young in July 2021.


  1. PJ says:

    While not decisive, this money gap is going to give Obama and the Democrats tremendous advantages going forward.

    Tremendous? Remember that Citizen United decision? It will help to alleviate that though.

  2. Tsar Nicholas II says:

    I’m actually surprised Team Rambobama only raised $86M last quarter.

    When you factor in wealthy liberals on the coasts and young students sending in their allowance money it’s nearly a limitless supply of funds.

    Of course the official fundraising stats don’t include the value of favorable media coverage, nor do those totals include under-the-table union money.

  3. hey norm says:

    And now you see one of the reasons why the field of so-called republicans is so friggin’ weak.

  4. michael reynolds says:

    How is Tsar’s comment offensive or off-topic enough to be voted off the island?

  5. James Joyner says:

    @michael reynolds: I’m guessing it was some combination of “Team Rambobama” and the insipid reference to kids and their allowance that did the trick.

  6. michael reynolds says:

    @James Joyner: That all seems like basic snark to me.

  7. Neil Hudelson says:

    I’ll admit I vote down extremely hyperbolic pejorative comments, but Tsar’s strikes me as nothing special. I reserve down votes for “This is why every liberal/conservative is a g*ddamn idiot that shouldn’t be allowed in the country” types of comments.

    Calling the President a not particularly clever name, and blaming one’s personal problems on youth seems to me to be no worse than my elderly grandfather after a few too many Christmas day brandies.

    That said, for all the abuse of the like/dislike function,I’ve seen a lot less of the personal insults, or extremely pejorative statements that plagued this site a few months ago. Whether that’s from the like/dislike system, the Great Purge of 2011, or a combination of both, I don’t know.

  8. michael reynolds says:

    @Neil Hudelson: I agree, it’s a kinder, gentler OTB. The ambient IQ is up about 20 points.

  9. Kylopod says:

    I try to be restrained with this thumbs-down option. So far, I’ve basically used it only for truly offensive stuff (like some of the comments in the thread on Jewish voters) and things like John Malkovich’s obsessive linking to an Alex Knapp post, in any thread about Sarah Palin. Just being stupid and obnoxious, and engaging in a little name-calling, isn’t enough. It has to be something I think is truly disruptive.

  10. walt moffett says:

    When will public financing of presidential campaigns be put out of its misery?

  11. Money is way overrated but it is nicer to have than to not have.

  12. WR says:

    @James Joyner: It was hidden by the time I got here, but I’d guess the standard slander about “under the table Union money” had something to do with it as well.