Ron Paul Raises $8.2 Million In Third Quarter

Ron Paul isn’t going to be the Republican nominee for President, but that doesn’t mean he can’t play the fundraising game:

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign raised a whopping $8,268,499.92 during the third fundraising quarter, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Paul’s campaign spent $7,559,908.76 during the third quarter, which runs from July 1 to Sept. 30. As of Sept. 30, the campaign has $3,674,768.16.

Paul’s third quarter performance nearly doubles his performance during the second quarter, when he raised $4.5 million.

Pending the numbers from other candidates, and truthfully there’s nobody else out there who seems likely to raise more than this that hasn’t released figures yet, that puts Paul in third place in the fundraising race behind Perry and Romney. Like I said, its unlikely that this money will translate into votes but it tends to guarantee that Paul will be in  the race long after candidates like Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, etc have faded away.

FILED UNDER: 2012 Election, 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. James Joyner says:

    Paul was a money-making the last time, too. He’s a unique voice and has a small, loyal following. But he’s unlikely to win a single primary or get more than a token number of delegates.

  2. Franklin says:

    With Paul’s “major announcement” coming on Monday – could the money mean he leaves the race and runs as an independent with someone like a Kucinich and a number of other “thinkers”. Call it the “Idea Party”. Partially kidding, partially HOPE-ing for CHANGE.

  3. Shawn says:

    Ron Paul IS going to win the nomination. He doesn’t have a small following. He has a huge following from every kind of background including people in other countries. The message of freedom unites people. Also, he makes people excited about politics again. There is actually a chance of not having to vote for one or another criminal. Paul makes people who have completely given up on politics get excited about it again. If anyone can energize people and get them to go vote in their primary, it’s Paul.

  4. @Franklin:

    No. It’s already been reported that Paul’s “major announcement” is the announcement of an economic plan.

  5. asdf says:

    Ron Paul will win the nomination. From Houston. Go Ron. We are behind you all the way.

  6. Franklin says:

    @Doug Mataconis: Yeah, pundits are claiming some branding. What do you think?

  7. I think what I said Franklin, Paul isn’t going to be the nominee and he’s not going to run third party. This campaign is his political swan song, that’s all.

  8. Franklin says:

    @Doug Mataconis: I begrudgingly agree, but what can the announcement be? Sure, it has something to do with economics a la Rick Perry, but looking at the race I’d probably quit.

    At the last debate, the guy just looked tired. Exhausted, more like. He’s getting sucked into too many directions – tv, radio, etc. – and it’s taken a toll.

    Swan song or not, in a time when people are fed up and have occupied, he’s been talking about abortion. Really, that’s an issue?

  9. As this story reported, it’s the economic plan. That’s all.

    Campaigns call everything a “major announcement,” that doesn’t mean it’s earth shattering.

  10. OWNtheNWO says:

    “Ron Paul isn’t going to be the Republican nominee for President,”

    Stopped reading.

    Even “outside the beltway” behave like insiders.

    Kindly Doug, [deleted for violation of comment policies] you and the horse you rode in on.

    I’ll see you at the polling booths.

  11. MM says:

    Shawn, now do the one where you say his pI’ll numbers are under counted due to cell phones.

  12. Cam says:

    All the haters like Doug claim Ron Paul can’t win, but who else had 100,000 donors in the 3rd quarter? No one else. October 19th will tell us how strong Ron Paul really is.

  13. Joseph says:

    Hmmm…it’s too bad that we can’t sue this guy for slander when Ron wins. Or at least for criminal stupidity.

  14. Travis says:

    So, why can’t you just report that he raised $8.2M in the 3rd quarter? Why do you have to discount this considerable feat in your opening line (especially since he has 5x the donors of Romney). Better yet, why are you injecting your opinion into the story at all? I thought journalism was about reporting the facts; not opinions.

  15. Joseph says:

    LMAO…A BA in poli-sci…..yeah he’s an expert.

  16. @Travis:

    I’m a blogger, not a journalist.

  17. Joseph says:

    But then those are just my opinions…much like his. I guess I’m entitled to mine if he is.

  18. Joseph says:

    @Doug Mataconis: it shows

  19. Steve Teters says:

    What always amazes me is the “Ron Paul isn’t going to be the Republican nominee for President” mentality espoused in this and many other “opinions” published. The fact that X person raised more money than Ron Paul does not equate to votes, especially when that money is from “bundlers and bankers”. It equates to “favors owed” to those backers, just like Obama. The fact that over 100,000 donors contributed to Ron Paul is almost twice as many as contributed to Romney, would also indicate he might get a “few” more votes, and that is the only thing that really counts.

  20. grumpy realist says:

    Looks like the Ron Paul fanbois have discovered the place….

    Make all the comments you want about how Ron Paul will suddenly come from behind and become the surprise front-runner. Won’t happen.

  21. Cam says:

    @grumpy realist: Maybe he’ll rise in the polls, maybe he won’t. I don’t have a time machine as apparently you do. What I do know is Ron Paul has changed the way I think and view the world for the better, and I know far more about foreign policy, economics, the constitution, and the electoral process than I did before the first time I saw him bravely stand for the truth in a GOP debate, knowing full well he would be eviscerated and mocked. So, you keep clutching your familiar blankie of grumpy realism if it comforts you. Me and the other Paulite fanboys will dream our beautiful dreams of freedom, personal responsibility and a government small enough to never dare assassinate U.S. Citizens or arm Mexican gangs intentionally.

  22. David M says:

    The comments here are sheer comedy gold. Paul had the same amount of support in 2008 and didn’t come close to winning the nomination then, why should 2012 be any different? If anything, he’s now competing with other nominees that sound almost as goofy as he does, so he doesn’t even have the flat out crazy vote all to himself anymore.

  23. grumpy realist says:


    Dream all you want; that doesn’t mean it’s going to become reality. Ron Paul has some ideas I’d like to see gain broader acceptance; that doesn’t mean that he isn’t a fruitcake. He’s allowed on Republican debates because he does have a very strong (although small) following.

    If you wonder why he’s treated like the crazy uncle in the attic, there might be a reason.

  24. Tsar Nicholas II says:

    Paul’s fundraising is Exhibit Z for why the minimum voting age needs to be increased at least to 30 and more realistically to 35; before it’s too late.

  25. Jim says:

    O soothsayer – Stop trying to decide who is and who is not going to win the nomination – so far every wet noodle of a candidate that the MSM has drooled over has not stuck and every-one of these wet noodles supported the bankster bailouts! How do you like them apples. Go Ron Paul the only true and honest condidate that the MSM is terrified of. Continue with your marching orders you are all becoming irrelevant anyways.

  26. Cam says:

    @David M: In the 3rd Quarter of 2007, he raised 5 million. In this last quarter, he raised 8.26 million. Really, you see no difference between 5 and 8.26? That’s funny, since to me it appears only 2 other GOP candidates have raised more money than Ron Paul.

  27. Rob says:

    I hear a lot that “Ron Paul isn’t going to be the Republican nominee” or “Ron Paul wont win” and being a Paul supporter or not, it should anger people to hear any form of media saying that someone won’t win. What does that mean? Are they telling us “Hey the game is rigged” or what? Who are they to say who will or won’t win reguardless of the canidate? The last I heard it is up to the American people to decide. And thank you media outlets because I wasn’t going to vote but when I kept hearing you guys say “Ron Paul won’t win” I researched the man and woke up! He has my vote for many reasons, 1 being our troops support him and I support my troops. 2 he has interety. 3 He is consistant even on contraversial issues and even has the voting record to prove it. 4 he will repeal the patriot act and get our freedom back. 5 The media thinks his foreign policy is absurd, but the cia agrees with Paul and should tell ya something. 6 The media doesn’t want him to win and that says a lot coming from an outlet that only spreads fear. I can keep going on and on but I feel no need. If you are curious as to why you should consider Ron Paul Youtube him, and you will find a wide array of videos and speeches this wise man has given over the past 30+ years. Also, if you think he does’nt know what he’s talking about when it comes to economics, he really does. He even wrote numerous books, some you could read for free at one of his web sites either ronpauldotcom or ronpaul2012dotcom or thedailypauldotcom or even ronpaul2008dotcom.

  28. Rick Almeida says:


    it should anger people to hear any form of media saying that someone won’t win. What does that mean?

    It means he received little of the Republican primary vote in 2008, and there is no evidence from the intervening 4 years to show an increase in his support.

    You say “the media doesn’t want him to win”, but it looks like Republican voters don’t want him to win.

  29. grumpy realist says:


    Just because a bunch of college kids are loud all over the internets doesn’t mean Ron Paul has the required support to win a primary.

    Plus–I guarantee: as soon as any of Ron Paul’s ideas gain any traction whatsoever, you’ll see Romney and others falling all over themselves to sing the same song.

  30. Tlaloc says:

    All the haters like Doug claim Ron Paul can’t win, but who else had 100,000 donors in the 3rd quarter? No one else. October 19th will tell us how strong Ron Paul really is.

    But donors don’t equal votes. In 2008 Ron Paul got ~35 delegates. For compairons Romney, Huckabee, and McCain got (respectively) 271, 278, and 1575. He won 0 states. In 2008 Ron Paul raised a respectable $28 million (the top contender raised $61 million and McCain, who won the nomination process raised $38 million), but he couldn’t (and can’t) convert that into votes.

  31. Kim says:

    @Tsar Nicholas II: And will we then also tell our youth that they don’t have to register for the draft until the age of 30 or 35? It’d be pretty crappy of our government to require that people submit themselves to fight for a cause when they don’t even have the right to vote for/against the people that implement it.

    Will we also raise the age of sexual consent? What about legal contracts? Can’t expect someone to be able to make a legally binding decision if he can’t be trusted to vote yet. Oh, and maybe, just maybe, we should raise the age requirement to run for, ya know, the office of Representative? Right now you only have to be 25, we might be poisoned by our youth if we allow anyone that young to actually represent us. Senators, too, if you get your way and the number is 35 rather than 30, since Senators currently only have to be 30.

    Get real. You’re more obnoxious than the guy who blithely asserts that Ron Paul ‘isn’t going to win’. That guy might be right…however, YOU certainly are not. With the average lifespan being what, 70 or so years, you are talking about stripping the voting RIGHT away from at least 1/5 of the adult age range. Who would you target next, o wise one? What other block of voters votes for things you don’t like? Let’s strip their rights away too.

  32. grumpy realist says:

    When people get called “haters” for simply pointing out reality, you know you’re dealing with a cult.

  33. Kim says:

    As for the author of this piece, well, I disagree with his assertion that Ron Paul can’t win. I think he’s the only guy that wouldn’t sell out the American public to the highest bidding special interest group, and that that works against him…and how sad is that? The only ‘viable’ candidates are crooks? Meh. I’ll vote for the guy I think is right, not the guy I’m told to vote for.

    I actually just registered again, for specifically that reason. My lifelong disinterest in politics is over, thanks to Dr Paul.

  34. Cam says:

    @Rick Almeida: I would say the proof Ron Paul has a chance is he’s 3rd in fundraising, and has come in 3rd in several polls. He has the 2nd highest vote total at Ames EVER, and the other GOP candidates are saying all the things you all laughed at in 2007.

  35. mantis says:

    I love when Paulbots attack.

  36. Cam says:

    @mantis: i love when those who cloak themselves in anonymity make ad hominem attacks, because their own views are vapid and their arguments are vacuous. Why don’t you crawl away and bug someone else?