It Takes More Than Money To Win An Election

 In the past, many Democrats have complained that they could not win elections because they didn't have the money to compete with Republican candidates. That was not a problem in 2020, as Democrats across the country outraged their Republican opponents in campaign funds. Sadly though, Democrats lost seats in the House (although retaining control with a smaller majority), and need to win both Senate seats in Georgia to get control of the Senate.

It just goes to show that raising large amounts of campaign cash doesn't necessarily translate into wins. That was especially shown in the Senate seats in Kentucky and South Carolina. Democrats nominated good candidates in both states, and those candidates raised more than double the cash that their opponents did. But the Republicans won both seats, giving them a good chance to retain control of the Senate.

Campaign cash is important, because it allows a candidate to compete in advertising, but it takes more than money to win an election.

Sanders & Warren Lead The Pack In 3rd Quarter Donations

The leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have announced their third quarter fundraising.

Bernie Sanders led all the others in the amount he raised. He received $25.3 million, much better than the fourth place he finished at in the 2nd quarter. But Warren was not far behind -- moving from a third place finish in the 2nd quarter to second with $24.6 million.

Biden and Buttigieg did just the opposite. Buttigieg moved from first in the second quarter to third this time with $19.1 million. Biden went from second to fourth with $15.2 million.

Kamala Harris repeated her 2nd quarter performance. She got $11.8 million then, and got $11.6 million in the 3rd quarter. Yang finished sixth, raising his 2nd quarter total of $2.8 million to about $10 million in the 3rd quarter. Cory Booker finished a poor seventh with slightly over $6 million.

Trump And NRA Illegally Coordinated Campaign Spending

Just one more example of how the Trump campaign flouted election laws in the 2016 campaign. The following is just a small part of an excellent expose by Mike Spies in Mother Jones:

The National Rifle Association spent $30 million to help elect Donald Trump—more than any other independent conservative group. Most of that sum went toward television advertising, but a political message loses its power if it fails to reach the right audience at the right time. For the complex and consequential task of placing ads in key markets across the nation in 2016, the NRA turned to a media strategy firm called Red Eagle Media.

One element of Red Eagle’s work for the NRA involved purchasing a slate of 52 ad slots on WVEC, the ABC affiliate in Norfolk, Virginia, in late October 2016. The ads targeted adults aged 35 to 64, and aired on local news programs and syndicated shows like Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune. In paperwork filed with the Federal Communications Commission, Red Eagle described them as “anti-Hillary” and “pro-Trump.”

The Trump campaign pursued a strikingly similar advertising strategy. Shortly after the Red Eagle purchase, as Election Day loomed, it bought 33 adson the same station, set to air during the same week. The ads, which the campaign purchased through a firm called American Media & Advocacy Group (AMAG), were aimed at precisely the same demographic as the NRA spots, and often ran during the same shows, bombarding Norfolk viewers with complementary messages.

The two purchases may have looked coincidental; Red Eagle and AMAG appear at first glance to be separate firms. But each is closely connected to a major conservative media-consulting firm called National Media Research, Planning and Placement. In fact, the three outfits are so intertwined that both the NRA’s and the Trump campaign’s ad buys were authorized by the same person: National Media’s chief financial officer, Jon Ferrell.

“This is very strong evidence, if not proof, of illegal coordination,” said Larry Noble, a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission. “This is the heat of the general election, and the same person is acting as an agent for the NRA and the Trump campaign.”

Reporting by The Trace, which has teamed up with Mother Jonesto investigate the NRA’s political activity, shows that the NRA and the Trump campaign employed the same operation—at times, the exact same people—to craft and execute their advertising strategies for the 2016 presidential election. The investigation, which involved a review of more than 1,000 pages of Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission documents, found multiple instances in which National Media, through its affiliates Red Eagle and AMAG, executed ad buys for Trump and the NRA that seemed coordinated to enhance each other.

Individuals working for National Media or its affiliated companies either signed or were named in FCC documents, demonstrating that they had knowledge of both the NRA and the Trump campaign’s advertising plans.

Experts say the arrangement appears to violate campaign finance laws.

NRA Is Spending Far Less In 2018 Than It Did In 2014

A few weeks ago, I read some articles that said the National Rifle Association (NRA) is having some funding problems. That its contributions are way down. The chart above (from McClatchey newspapers) shows that may be true. At this point in the 2014 elections, the NRA had spent about $16 million to support their favorite Republican candidates. In 2018, they have spent only about one-tenth of that -- about $1.6 million.

Public Doesn't Like Current Electoral Process In The U.S.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “American elections are fair and open”

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements:

 “Recently a political committee aligned with one of the nation’s top leaders accepted over $24 million from a single individual. The donor is anonymous, and the law permits that. Which statement comes closest to your views?”

 Do you think the Supreme Court should…

The University of Virginia Center for Politics recently commissioned the Ipsos Poll to do a survey on the thoughts of Americans about the current electoral process. The results are in the charts above, and they show many people would like to see some changes.

About 43% of Americans say our elections are not free and fair, while only 51% say they are. That's a problem. Why do they feel this way? Because they think the rich and corporations are being allowed to buy too many elections.

About 87% say political ads on TV should be required to say who paid for the ad, and 86% say the same of internet ads. About 75% say interest groups should have to follow the same campaign/election laws that political candidates must follow. About 72% don't like political donations being kept secret, 52% want donors to political organizations to be disclosed, and 48% would like limits placed on the amount super-PACs can raise and spend.

Interesting Financial Numbers In Texas U.S. Senate Race

Here's a little more evidence that the Texas race for the U.S. Senate could be closer than some people think. We already know that Texas Democrats are enthused about voting this year, and that Ted Cruz is not very popular in Texas (running on GOP ticket is what's saving him so far). Now we see the campaign finance results for the first six weeks of 2018.

From January 1st through February 14th, Democrat Beto O'Rourke received $2.3 million in campaign donations -- far more than Republican Ted Cruz, who only raised $800,000. During that same period, O'Rourke spent $2 million and Cruz spent $1.2 million.

But perhaps most interesting is that the Democrat is not that far behind Cruz in cash on hand, even though Cruz started with a fat campaign chest. O'Rourke has $4.9 million and Cruz has $6 million.

If the campaign giving for O'Rourke continues to exceed expectations (and there's no reason why it wouldn't), then he will be in better position financially than any other Democratic senate candidate in quite a while. Combine that with his personality and his being a great campaigner, and O'Rourke could run Cruz a close race -- and maybe even win (if Democrats turn out their vote in November).

I'm getting cautiously excited about this race.

Can Something Be Done About Our Gun Problem Now ?

(Cartoon image is by Joe Heller at hellertoon.com.)

In December of 2012, a man took an assault rifle and killed 20 first graders (and six teachers) in Newtown's Sandy Hook Elementary School. Many of us thought that would spur some action by Congress to address the widespread availability of guns in this country, and its contribution to an ever-growing number of mass shootings (averaging about one every day in the U.S.).

We were wrong. The congressional Republicans showed an amazingly cold-hearted ability to turn their backs on those dead children. They decided that the money they receive from the NRA (and gun manufacturers) was more important to them than the lives of American children. They offered "thoughts and prayers", and then did nothing.

So far this year, we have had at least 18 school shootings -- the most recent being the murder of 17 students and staff in Parkland, Florida. Once again, the nation is outraged. This time the students themselves are trying to start a movement to get something done, and the news networks are helping them pass the word. That's heartening, but the Republicans have shown us in the past that they can ignore a popular movement -- after all, about 90% of Americans support plugging the holes in the background check law, but that hasn't moved Congress to action. There's just too much NRA campaign money to give up!

But we may be seeing the beginning of a movement that could matter. Former Ambassador  (and prominent GOP financier) Al Hoffman, Jr. has declared that he won't give another penny to any Republican candidate that fails to act to ban assault weapons -- and he gives enough to matter. He's also trying to get other top Republican donors on board also. If he can get enough on board with him to seriously affect campaign donations (at least equaling the money from the NRA), that could actually spur the Republicans to take action.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for Republicans to act on the gun violence, but at least someone's now talking about something they care about. They may not care about American lives, but they do care about donations to their own campaigns. In fact, it seems to be the only thing they care about.

Will enough donors come to their senses and join Hoffman? We'll just have to wait and see.

O'Rourke Outraises Cruz But Still Trails In Cash On Hand

The chart above shows the money raised by the leading senate candidates in Texas for the last three quarters of 2017. Those candidates are Beto O'Rourke (Democrat) and Ted Cruz (Republican). Cruz is the incumbent.

Since entering the race, O'Rourke has raised more than Cruz in two of the three quarters of 2017 (the second and fourth quarters). O'Rourke raised $2.1 million in the second quarter, $1.7 million in the third quarter, and $2.4 million in the fourth quarter -- for a total in 2017 of $6.2 million.

Cruz raised $1.6 million in the second quarter, $2 million in the third quarter, and $1.9 million in the fourth quarter -- for a total in 2017 of $5.5 million.

Cruz accepts corporate and PAC money, but O'Rourke does not.

Even though O'Rourke raised $700,000 more than Cruz in 2017, he still trails Cruz in the amount of cash on hand. That's because Cruz already had money on hand when O'Rourke entered the race and began raising funds.

Our Campaign Laws Allow Legal Political Money Laundering

 (Cartoon image is by Rodrigo at toonpool.com.)

The Center for Public Integrity says the current state of our campaign laws allows a legalized form of money laundering (and both political parties are engaging in it). They are right. Here is just a small portion of an excellent article by Carrie Levine at the Center for Public Integrity website:

In 2003, Sen. John McCain declared the federal government’s ban on “soft money” —  the unlimited cash donors showered on national political parties —  a “victory for the people of America and democracy.”

McCain was ecstatic: Legislation he championed to reduce the influence of money in politics had just withstood a Supreme Court challenge. And the Arizona Republican prevailed after having enlisted members of both parties in his crusade.

But a new Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign finance data indicates Democrats and Republicans alike are now aggressively trafficking in a new — and perfectly legal — kind of soft money, enabled by a 2014 Supreme Court decision, the latest in a series gutting major parts of McCain’s 2002 law.

The new tactic is also changing political fundamentals.

In a fundraising environment that had come to be dominated by super PACs— committees that may raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against specific candidates — it’s helping national political parties regain some relevancy after years of declining power. It’s also reviving an era when politicians were able to directly solicit six- and seven-figure checks from donors on behalf of the political parties, raising the specter of corruption and scandals that dogged politicos during the 1990s.

Here’s how this shell game works: Top donors spent the 2016 election cycle legally writing six-figure checks to so-called joint fundraising committees — committees that can dole their contributions out to multiple allies, notably including state political parties.

But rather than keep all the cash, the state parties have been quickly steering the money to the national parties, taking advantage of their ability to transfer unlimited cash to their national affiliates.

The joint fundraising vehicles aren’t new, but the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision to eliminate some obscure but important campaign contribution limits in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission had the effect of supercharging them. The 2016 election provided a first, full glimpse at what the new legal landscape would mean in reality.

The result: Parties are more aggressively and successfully courting a small number of deep-pocketed donors, giving the wealthy another way to exert their ever-growing influence over politics. And the national parties, which had lost their luster as deep-pocketed donors steered their money to other vehicles, are once again flush with burgeoning amounts of cash whose origins can be difficult to divine.

Foes of McCain’s effort to restrict political giving welcome the changes. But nonpartisan watchdog groups aren’t happy. The situation is “effectively a form of legalized money laundering and it is something that we’ve seen on both sides,” says Brendan Fischer of the Campaign Legal Center.

(Cartoon image is by Daryl Cagle at cagle.com.)

Clinton Is Still Winning The 2016 Presidential Money Battle

During the period between October 1st and 19th, Hillary Clinton did significantly better than Donald Trump in the battle for campaign money. She raised $22.3 million more than him, spent about $0.8 million more, and has $46.4 million more on hand than him. Going into the last two weeks of the campaign, Clinton has a pretty large monetary advantage.

Outside Money Favors Clinton Over Trump By A 2-1 Margin

(The cartoon image above was found at progressive.org.)

When the misguided Citizens United vs FEC decision came out of the Supreme Court a few years ago, Democrats were horrified. They had visions of Wall Street bankers and corporate moguls pouring huge sums of money into national elections to give the Republicans an advantage. But that is not what happened this year. In 2016, the outside money has favored Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a 2 to 1 margin. It looks like Trump scares the wealthy donors (or they see him as having no chance to win).

Here's part of a New York Times article on the subject by Nicholas Confessore and Rachel Shorey:

Six years after a Supreme Court decision opened vast new channels for money to flow into national elections, Democrats have built the largest and best-coordinated apparatus of outside groups operating in the 2016 presidential campaign, defying expectations that conservative and corporate wealth would dominate the race.

A dozen different organizations raised over $200 million through the beginning of October and since May have spent more than $110 million on television, digital, and radio ads in support of Hillary Clinton, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission through Thursday.

The handful of organizations backing Donald J. Trump have raised less than half that amount, a steep dive from four years ago, when wealthy Republicans poured hundreds of millions of dollars into groups backing the Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

The Democrats’ success this year reflects, in part, Mrs. Clinton’s close personal ties to her party’s elite donors and her allies’ willingness to exploit the 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case far more aggressively than President Obama did.

But the Democrats are also deeply indebted to one man: Mr. Trump, whose provocations and tirades — along with a loud crusade against his own party’s donors — have virtually shut off what once promised to be a half-billion-dollar spigot of outside money.

“Everyone thought that we would be outspent, that there would be significant operations built at the presidential level for the other candidate,” said Guy Cecil, a former Clinton aide who heads Priorities USA Action, the main hub of big Democratic giving. “That obviously hasn’t happened.”

The biggest groups set up or expanded by conservatives since Citizens United — including American Crossroads, founded by Karl Rove, and the network overseen by Charles G. and David H. Koch — are absent from the presidential campaign, focusing instead on protecting Republicans in Congress.

Donald Trump Has Blatantly Violated Campaign Finance Law

(Caricature of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

Campaign finance law is very clear. Political candidates cannot receive any donations from residents of another country. In fact, the only people who can donate money to a political campaign are those living in this country -- and they must either be citizens or have a legal "Green card". This is to prevent foreign nationals (especially rich ones) from having any effect on our elections.

That is not hard to understand, and it is to be expected that all candidates (especially those running for president of this country) would know and respect that law. But Donald Trump and his aides either don't know what the campaign laws are, or they don't care what they are -- maybe both.

There is indisputable evidence that the Trump campaign has sent fund-raising letters to people in other countries -- the United Kingdom, Iceland, and Australia. Now it looks like Trump is in trouble because of this illegal fund-raising. Two campaign watchdog groups, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, have filed complaints with the FEC.

The FEC needs to come down hard on the Trump campaign, because this is a law that must be strictly enforced to protect the sanctity of U.S. elections.

Sanders Has Spent 60% Of All Democratic Ad Spending

Bernie Sanders has made it a centerpiece of his campaign to get "big money" out of politics -- so it is a bit strange that his campaign is the biggest spender of all. Neither Hillary Clinton nor any of the 17 Republican candidates has spent as much money on media consulting, production, and ad buys as Sanders has spent. In fact, Clinton has spent only about 2/3 (67%) of what Sanders has spent.

Here is some of what The Washington Post wrote about Sanders' campaign spending:

The small-dollar fundraising juggernaut that has kept Bernie Sanders’s insurgent White House bid afloat far longer than anticipated has generated another unexpected impact: a financial windfall for his team of Washington consultants.

By the end of March, the self-described democratic socialist senator from Vermont had spent nearly $166 million on his campaign — more than any other 2016 presidential contender, including rival Hillary Clinton. More than $91 million went to a small group of admakers and media buyers who produced a swarm of commercials and placed them on television, radio and online, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission reports.

While the vast majority of that money was passed along to television stations and websites to pay for the advertising, millions in fees were kept by the companies, The Post calculated. While it is impossible to determine precisely how much the top consultants have earned, FEC filings indicate the top three media firms have reaped payments of seven figures.

Sanders’s money blitz, fueled by a $27 average donation that he repeatedly touts, has improbably made the anti-billionaire populist the biggest spender so far in the election cycle. The campaign’s wealth has been a surprising boon for vendors across the country who signed on to his long-shot bid.

The large profits stem in part from the fact that no one in Sanders’s campaign imagined he would generate such enormous financial support. So unlike Clinton, he did not cap how much his consultants could earn in commissions from what was expected to be a bare-bones operation, according to campaign officials.

Sanders likes to claim that he was the little guy, and couldn't compete with other big spending campaigns. That is simply not true (as the chart above shows). Sanders didn't lose because he couldn't afford to compete. He lost because Democrats didn't want him to be their nominee. They preferred to be represented by Hillary Clinton (by several million popular votes and hundreds of delegates). Bernie and his supporters don't want to admit that, but it is the truth.

Sanders Has Spent More Money Campaigning Than Others

Ask any Bernie Sanders supporter and they'll tell you that Bernie has received the most money in small donations directly to his campaign than Hillary Clinton (donations directly to a campaign cannot exceed $2700). It is not true. Both candidates have received an almost equal amount donated directly to their campaign -- with Clinton receiving slightly more ($186.7 million to $185.9 million. And more than 90% of that money donated to both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns was in amounts of less than $200.

So both the Democratic campaigns have millions of small donors contributing to them -- and both have received much more money from individuals donating directly to their campaigns than any of the Republican candidates -- with Cruz receiving $79.1 million, Trump receiving $$49.3, and Kasich receiving $16.6 million.

But while Sanders hasn't raised quite as much as Clinton is direct contributions, he has spent more -- about $10.5 million more ($157.8 million for Clinton to $168.3 million for Sanders). And both Democrats have spent more than any of their Republican opponents -- probably because they had raised a lot more money.

It seems that individual donors prefer Democrats (both Clinton and Sanders) over Republicans. But don't feel sorry for the Republicans. Once their nominee is final, you can expect many millions in dark money to be spent supporting their candidate -- corporate money, given in secret.

Sanders Continues To Lie About Clinton's Fundraising

Hillary Clinton was in California this last weekend to do some fundraising. George Clooney and his wife hosted two fundraisers -- one in San Francisco and the other in Los Angeles. Both events had a high-dollar ticket price -- about $33,400 each.

Bernie Sanders has jumped on that, and is trying to use it to further his own campaign. He told CNN:

“It is obscene that [Clinton] keeps going to big-money people to fund her campaign.”


That is more than a bit disingenuous. The inference, of course, is that the several million dollars raised at these events will go into Clinton's campaign fund. That is simply not true. Most, if not all, of the money raised will go to the DNC and to state party organizations -- and will be spent to help fund down-ballot Democrats. How much money has Sanders raised for down-ballot Democrats? That would be ZERO.

Clinton knows that a Democratic president cannot make the changes necessary to help this country without support from a lot of Democrats in the House and Senate -- and she is doing what she can to make sure as many down-ballot Democrats as possible are elected.Clinton's fundraising for her party is far from "obscene". It is both pragmatic and necessary.

Meanwhile, Sanders still thinks only of himself. Evidently he doesn't believe he will need a Democratic Congress to accomplish his goals if elected. He is a fool.

(NOTE -- The picture of George Clooney at the White House is from Wikipedia.)

Bernie Has Benefitted More From Super-PACs Than Hillary

(These caricatures of Sanders and Clinton are by DonkeyHotey.)

I have always liked Bernie Sanders (and even donated to his last senate campaign), but I am starting to be disappointed in him. That's because he has been very dishonest in his talk about super-PACs. He continues to claim that he's the only candidate who doesn't have a super-PAC. That is a lie.

The truth is that no candidate "has" a super-PAC. If they did, they would be violating federal election law. The law prohibits any candidate from having a connection with (or even coordinating with) a super-PAC. His inference, of course, is that Hillary Clinton has a super-PAC. She does not. She has super-PAC support, but so does Sanders (a fact that he omits when talking about this).

He also charges that Hillary Clinton has raised money for a super-PAC. That is true. Clinton has helped the Priorities USA Action super-PAC to raise money. That is a progressive super-PAC founded to support the election of Barack Obama, and now supports the election of a progressive to be elected president in 2016. Priorities USA Action has spent very little in the primaries -- preferring instead to save their money to fight for the Democratic nominee in the general election (which, ironically, would be Sanders if he could win the nomination).

The impression Sanders is trying to give Democratic voters is that he is not getting super-PAC help, while his opponent (Clinton) is getting massive super-PAC help. Is that true. No. That turns out to also be a lie. The money spent to help the Clinton campaign in the primaries by all outside groups (Priorities Action USA, Correct The Record, Planned Parenthood, and the League of Conservation Voters) is $847,000. Those groups together don't equal the super-PAC support Sanders has received from the National Nurses United super-PAC, which has spent about $1,000,000 to support Sanders.

And that doesn't count the conservative super-PACs, that have spent $4.3 in attacking Clinton this campaign season -- including American Crossroads spending on ads attacking Clinton for Wall Street speaking fees (a favorite Sanders campaign theme), and the Ending Spending group that ran ads in Iowa (supposedly attacking Sanders, but in a way that seemed to encourage Democrats to support him). These groups have decided that would much rather have their GOP nominee run against Sanders than Clinton.

Suffice it to say that when Sanders gets on his patented super-PAC rant, he is being disingenuous at best and is outright lying at worst. Since he's not a stupid man, I think he is just lying. Sanders supporters like to say that Clinton can't be trusted. It looks like that same charge can be leveled at their own candidate.

Public Wants Campaign Spending By Outside Groups Limited

Thanks to a misguided Supreme Court decision (Citizens United vs. FEC), outside groups (groups not specifically connected to any individual candidate's campaign) can collect and spend an unlimited amount of money to support a candidate's campaign -- and they are spending a record amount of money in this electoral season (much of the money donated in secret).

This gives the rich a much bigger voice in electoral support than small donors, and while elected Republicans are the ones who have blocked attempts to limit this money, all candidates are being supported by outside groups (such as superPAC's) -- including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

It can be debated just how effective this unlimited spending has been so far in the 2016 campaign. The candidate with the most outside spending support, Jeb Bush, has seen his chances of election go down the tubes. But the perception of the general public is that this unlimited (and largely secret) spending is a bad thing.

A recent YouGov Poll (done between December 30th and January 6th of a random national sample of 2,000 adults, with a 2.8 point margin of error) shows a clear and significant majority of the public would like to see this spending by outside groups limited by law. They don't like even the perception that the rich (and interest groups) could buy the election -- and put the candidates of their choice in government (especially the White House).

And this is not just the belief of one or two demographic groups. It has between 50% and 67% support among all groups -- regardless of sex, age, race, political party, or income level.

It is time for Congress to recognize the will of the people, and put limits on this outside spending -- even if it has to do so with a constitutional amendment. Our national elections must be perceived as genuinely reflecting the will of the electorate, without undue influence from monied interests.

Bernie Sanders Joins Others In Getting Super-PAC Help

(This caricature of Bernie Sanders is by the prolific DonkeyHotey.)

Since starting his campaign for president, Bernie Sanders has bragged that he gets over 90% of his campaign contributions from small donors (those giving $200 or less). That is true, but it is also true of Hillary Clinton. But Sanders has gone further, and claimed that he gets no help from super-PAC spending on his behalf (while Clinton does benefit from that). That is no longer true.

Note this from the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation (which does an excellent job of keeping up with politician's finances of both parties):

National Nurses United endorsed Sanders on Aug. 11, and to date the group's affiliated super PAC has spent a little more than $569,000 in support of him. The spending ranges from print and online ads to printing materials, with significant buys in key states like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. As of the last super PAC filing on June 30, the group had about $250,000 cash on hand.

National Nurses United for Patient Protection is a super PAC whose primary donor is National Nurses United, a union of more than 185,000 registered nurses across all 50 states. The super PAC also has another donor from its filing earlier this year, a 527 group called Progressive Kick, which runs donor-matching programs for progressive causes.

When this was revealed, Jeff Weaver (Sanders' campaign manager) was quick to say:

“We have not started a super PAC, are not coordinating with a super PAC, and have not fundraised for a super PAC."


I have no doubt that what he says is true -- but it is also true for Hillary Clinton and other candidates. It is still illegal for any candidate to start a super-PAC, coordinate with a super-PAC, or fundraise for a super-PAC.

That does not change the fact that he has benefitted from super-PAC spending -- to the tune of more than half a million dollars. And there will likely be more in the future.

Clinton And Sanders Top All Others In 3rd Quarter Donations

(These figures are from the Federal Elections Commission website.)

The total amount raised by all six Democratic candidates combined in the third quarter of 2015 was $123.2 million (or an average of $20.53 million per candidate). For the 15 Republican candidates, it was $143.5 million (or an average of $9.57 million per candidate.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders raised more money (donated directly to their campaigns, and subject to giving limits) than any other candidates of either party. Clinton raised $29.5 million, and Sanders raised $26.2 million. The Democrat raising the least amount of money was Chafee (with only about $0.02 million).

Most of the donations to both were from small donors (giving $200 or less). The Democrat raising the least amount of money was Chafee (with only about $0.02 million). Clinton raised $27.1 from individuals, while Sanders raised $26.2 million from individuals.

Ben Carson was third with $20.8 million in 3rd quarter donations. Jeb Bush (with $13.4 million) and Ted Cruz (with $12.2 million) were fourth and fifth, and the only other candidates to reach double-figure millions in donations. The Republican raising the least amount of money was Gilmore (with only $0.01million).

The Republican candidates struggled to appeal to small donors. Carson and Cruz led the others -- with Carson getting 60% of his money from small donors, and Cruz getting 44% from small donors. Fiorina got nearly half of her donations from small donors, but only raised $6.8 million. Jeb Bush got only 6.5% of his donations from small donors.

The money raised by all the candidates is represented in the chart above.

But while the Republicans lag behind in donations to individual campaigns (and in the percentage of donations from small donors), they have a huge lead in the amount of money collected by super-PAC's and other outside sources. Those outside sources won't have to report again until January of 2016, but by mid-year, a whopping $234 million was given to support Republicans while only $17 million was to support Democrats.

The Candidate Campaigns That Texans Are Donating To

The state of Texas has a huge population, and that means it also has a lot of money that could be donated to candidate campaigns. Because of that, Texas will probably get a lot of campaign visits during the primary campaigns, because candidates will be wanting their share of the Texas "piggy bank".

So, who are Texans donating to so far? The chart above is from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and it includes those donors who had given through the end of the last reporting period (according to the FEC). Note that this does not include those giving huge sums to PACs and Super-PACs. These are only the donors who have given directly to a candidate's campaign (and which are limited to a certain amount by federal law).

Clearly, the big winner is home-state Senator Ted Cruz, who has a huge lead over all other candidates in the number of donors. Over 8,600 people have donated money to Cruz's campaign. Hillary Clinton is a distant second with 2,169 donors (over four times as many as her closest opponent, Bernie Sanders).

The big surprises for me were Ben Carson and Jeb Bush. Carson finished second among Republicans with 1,872 donors. I had no idea he was that popular among GOP donors in Texas. On the other hand, Jeb Bush has under-performed badly -- getting only a paltry 550 donors. I would have expected him to do much better than that.

NOTE -- Texans need to enjoy now this popularity during the primary season. It will probably be ignored by both parties once the general election season starts (since most believe the state is solidly in the Republican corner). That's what has happened in the recent presidential elections.