Hillary Clinton’s campaign is on the ropes, but that hasn’t stopped the so-called “American Leadership Project” from launching an ambitious spending effort to help her win the Democratic nomination.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Sen. Clinton’s campaign has just $4 million in campaign funds left. Sen. Barack Obama has $20 million.

While Clinton and Obama virtually split the Super Tuesday primaries, Obama knew that in order to win, he’d have to make a move after that date.

He was planning for this all along. Boston radio personality and political pundit Jay Severin notes that conversely, Clinton simply wasn’t ready.

So now it’s on to Ohio and Texas on March 4, with the Clintons desperate to make a final stand in a Democratic race they felt they were entitled to, even if they still don’t know what their own campaign message is.

Which brings us to the quote-unquote American Leadership Project.

Planning to spend $10 million in ads promoting “issues,” the pro-Hillary Clinton group filed paperwork last week with the IRS to become a “527 organization” and has begun lining up supporters. What this means:

• Under the law, most organizations that seek to sway elections can’t accept donations of more than $5,000 a year from individuals.
• Named for a section of the tax code, a 527 group can accept any amount, as long its ads aren’t “an attempt to influence an election.”
• To comply with the law, the Project won’t call on people to vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead, it will focus on her policies.

The Obama campaign, which has shattered fundraising records in 2008 on the strength of contributions from small donors, issued the following statement, questioning the American Leadership Project’s legitimacy:

“Here we have a committee that springs up on the eve of an election, promotes a specific candidate, and has no history or apparent purpose of lobbying specific issues… Its ‘major purpose’ is no mystery.”

Whatever its purpose is, it’s hard to see it working.

The contrasts between Hillary Clinton’s positions and Barack Obama’s are slim to none in many cases, and when there are differences (say, regarding the Iraq war), she hasn’t convinced voters that her stance is the right one.

Obama has framed the campaign as the past vs. the future, with himself on the right side of the spectrum. Good, old fashioned bribes to superdelegates might be a better use of the former First Lady’s funds at this point.

As the Democratic candidates hunker down for a war of attrition, aides to Hillary Clinton revealed that she dipped into her personal fortune last month to lend the campaign $5 million.

This signals what many would have considered unthinkable three months ago - the potential financial vulnerability of her bid.

The Clinton campaign also disclosed that several senior staffers, including her campaign manager, are voluntarily working without pay.

The New York senator (seen above on February 5) made the loan in late January during the run-up to Super Tuesday, in which she and Barack Obama fought to a virtual draw in a quasi-national primary.

Both campaigns are still arguing the number of delegates won.

During January, Obama raised a staggering $32 million to $13.5 million for Clinton and expanded his donor base to more than 650,000.

Unlike the Clinton campaign, which depends heavily on wealthy contributors who have already reached the $2,300 legal limit they can give, Obama raised that from smaller donors - ones who can keep giving.

“Heading into the next states, Barack Obama has a clear money advantage,” said CNN analyst Gloria Borger said.

“Now Hillary Clinton wants to debate every single week because she doesn’t have the money to compete with him for paid media. I think we’ll be seeing a lot more Obama and Hillary Clinton one-on-one.”

Next up? The Louisiana primary, Nebraska and Washington caucuses Saturday, Maine caucuses Sunday, and the so-called “Potomac primaries” or “Beltway primaries” in Virginia, Maryland and D.C. Tuesday.

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton raised $26 million in the first quarter, shattering party records while barely meeting the expectations she’s created as a prodigious fundraiser.

According to Bloomberg News, the New York senator added $10 million more left over from her Senate account, bringing her total to $36 million, her campaign announced yesterday.

The campaign didn’t say how much it spent organizing fundraising events from New York to Los Angeles, or how much it had left over in cash.

John Edwards, one of her chief rivals, brought in $14 million.

The so-called “money primary” now offers a test for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Hillary’s closest national competitor.

Clinton had been trying to deflate Obama, John Edwards and other rivals with her front-running status, endorsements and huge fundraisers.

This didn’t quite do it.

“I don’t think the amount is the knockout blow,” Herbert Alexander, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Southern California, said.

Obama’s campaign has yet to release a fundraising estimate. The campaigns aren’t required to report their first-quarter results until April 15.

Campaign finance experts and political operatives expect Barack Obama to report that he raised $20 million or more.

“Clinton is raising money at a rate far beyond any previous Democrat,”said Anthony Corrado, a professor at Colby College. “Really, the only comparison here is with George W. Bush when he ran without opposition in 2004.”

On the Republican side, ex-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney reported $23 million, former New York Mayor and current GOP frontrunner Rudolph Giuliani reported more than $15 million, including some $10 million in March alone, and Arizona Senator John McCain has yet to release figures.

Three other Democratic contenders also gave preliminary fundraising totals for the first quarter: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson brought in $6 million, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden raised about $3 million.

Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd took in $4 million and added $5 million more from his Senate account, bringing his first-quarter total to $9 million. Dodd had about $7.5 million in cash as of March 31.

Continue reading this article …

The Iowa caucuses that kick off the presidential campaign are nearly a year - and $100 million - away.

No one’s doubting that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), has the capacity to raise at least that much, and according to the San Jose Mercury-News, other contenders believe they do as well.

To wage a serious presidential campaign in 2008, the ante is $50 million by December 31, 2007, said an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

And that’s just a cover charge.

To reach that daunting sum, a candidate must bring in an average of nearly $2 million a week, or $274,000 a day, all raised in increments limited to no more than $2,100 per person.

Start late or fall behind and the burden increases.

Clinton and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson joined in the competition for campaign money this month, announcing the formation of their presidential exploratory committees less than a week after Obama entered the race.

In this election, candidates court well-heeled, well-connected supporters who can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars from wealthy friends and business contacts.

They will commute back and forth among New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Palm Beach, Fla., and other money centers for mammoth events that in some cases may raise $1 million or more in an evening.

They will hone sophisticated marketing campaigns that use Internet sites, videos and e-mail to galvanize large followings of dedicated supporters whose modest individual contributions can add up to staggering sums.

Federal Election Commission member Michael Toner predicts an unprecedented fundraising sprint during the first six months of this year, with up to $50 or $60 million raised by the end of June and $100 million by the end of the year for the serious contenders.

Presidential election campaigns regularly set records for their cost, but this time, there is an extraordinary confluence of factors that will drive the costs of early primaries especially high:

• The highly front-loaded schedule. In the Democratic Party, contests are tentatively scheduled in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina within a 15-day span in January.
• Defections from public financing. Previously, there were strict limits on spending for primaries in exchange for federal matching funds. Now, the contenders almost universally will eschew it.
• No incumbents. The field of candidates is unusually crowded, with no sitting president or vice president running for the first time since 1952, creating a wide open field. A big war chest shows strength and helps generate attention from media and voters.

George W. Bush opted out of public financing system during the primaries in 2000. John Kerry and Howard Dean both declined public financing for the 2004 primaries and went on to lead the Democratic field.

Continue reading this article …