Mitt Romey: Living Pay Check To Pay Check?

Mitt Romey: Living Pay Check To Pay Check?:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a GOP p...

Image via Wikipedia

This election year, brings a heavy reliance on “super PACs” more so than any other previous year. The Republican’s specifically have become increasingly dependent on money raised by these super PACs, even over more traditional channels.

How has this change effected the electors campaigns over all rate of return?

Let’s start by looking back at the 2008 election: The eight Republican candidates combined spend $42.0 million in January of that year. However, the electoral’s brought in $43.5 million enough to cover their expenses.

Moreover, the Democrats raised $62.5 million over all in January 2008, and also kept their books roughly in balance throughout their campaign process. They ended it with a combined $65.8 million in cash on hand.

Fast forward to the 2012 election year and we see that already, Mitt Romney’s has a negative cash flow of $12.2 million. According to The New York Times, “this represents the worst January in the F.E.C.’s [ Federal Election Commission] online records.” The previous positive record had been held by George W. Bush, who raised $2.0 million but spent $12.8 million (Bush’s total would have been larger than Romney’s if adjusted for inflation) Bush went on to exit January 2008 with $20.5 million (before inflation), about three times what Romney’s campaign had at the end of last month.

One the major problems is that Romney hardly ever does well with small donors. In January, his campaign brought in just $1.2 million in “unitemized” contributions (this category covers donations of $200 or less). That total was even worst when compared to the four remaining Republican campaigns; Rick Santorum brought in $2.6 million in unitemized contributions; Newt Gingrich, $2.5 million; and even Ron Paul brought in $2.1 million.

Romney’s relative lack of support from small donors is problematic because his “super PACs,” have spent almost all of their money on television advertising (much of it negative, and yet great to watch, but I digress) leaving candidates without the hardy organizational infrastructures that was built in the 2008 election year. In addition, Romney’s overall “financial sustainability” appears to be fairly weak by historical standards, with his campaign “generally establishing just one field office in each major state”, according to his campaign web-site.

In-other-words, unless Romney wraps up the nomination fairly quickly or his fund-raising pace picks up, he may need to down shift to self-financing (ohhh I just had deja vu) a situation Romney my not be unfamiliar with considering he did the same in 2008 (wait, did it help?!).

In the end, it is not uncommon for campaigns to live “paycheck to paycheck”, to use a manner of speaking but do they realistically survive it and go on to win?

One has to wonder if you can not handle the money in your own campaign (you know what I going to say) then why should we trust you with our countries budget?