Latest Breaking News

onenote

(46,148 posts)

16. I don't think the math adds up.

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 02:37 PM

Jul 2015

If 90 percent of the contributions were under $100 or less, and the goal was 50,000 contributions, then 45,000 contributions would have been $100 or less, for a total of (at most) $4.5 million. That leaves another $40.5 million to be raised from 5,000 contributions, an average of over $8000 per contribution. But under federal law, the maximum that an individual can donate during a primary campaign is $2700 and the maximum a PAC or party committee can give is $5000. It will be interesting to see what the actual figures are when the report is filed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton raised over $45 million in primary money, aide says [View all] George II Jul 2015 OP

Hillary will get soft money, too. merrily Jul 2015 #1

Impressive Renew Deal Jul 2015 #2

Beat the previous record. Nice. Skinner Jul 2015 #3

WTG Hillary Gothmog Jul 2015 #4

Do none of you think this kind of money for a political campaign passiveporcupine Jul 2015 #39

Absolutely AnnieO Jul 2015 #49

K & R Iliyah Jul 2015 #5

Go Hillary!!!! n/t cosmicone Jul 2015 #6

91% were under $100!? What a bunch of cheap-ass bank CEOs. nt onehandle Jul 2015 #7

But where did the money come from? INdemo Jul 2015 #8

PACs don't donate to presidential campaigns. nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #10

What? I beleive they do Remember citizens untied INdemo Jul 2015 #17

That part of federal law has not been challenged nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #19

I donated. Not part of a PAC. Just a small donation. Laser102 Jul 2015 #24

45 Million / 50 Thousand = $900. Doesn't seem very grass roots to me. Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #9

Elmer, where did you get that number, 50,000? candelista Jul 2015 #13

From the article: Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #14

It pays to read the article: George II Jul 2015 #37

I gave her $200. I AM the 9%. ;) nt Adrahil Jul 2015 #22

Yes!!! What out, you're getting awfully close to 1%! Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #25

Why don't we all wait for the actual report to be issued instead of... George II Jul 2015 #26

I am not being negative. Just expressing the reality of her donations. Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #27

After the formal report comes out you can quote anyone you want, but right now it's just....... George II Jul 2015 #28

No - came right right from the Donkeys mouth. Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #29

FYI- Just read that number was a late-quarter goal... Adrahil Jul 2015 #33

That's NOT what the article said! George II Jul 2015 #41

Chill Francis. Knock yourself out but I'm done Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #43

So, you made much ado about nothing and you bail. Figures. George II Jul 2015 #44

It's the internet, when one realizes he's totally wrong they counter with "I'm done", not I'm wrong! George II Jul 2015 #48

$150 of that was mine. Tarheel_Dem Jul 2015 #11

I can believe 90% of the donors were under $100, but not 90% of the $45M. candelista Jul 2015 #12

If they made up 90% of the $45M Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #15

Right. candelista Jul 2015 #18

Pretty much what I did, but I went by the %91 number cited in the article. Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #20

I don't think the math adds up. onenote Jul 2015 #16

They don't even have to discuss the Super-PAC money - which is obviously the difference here. Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #21

Huh? Super Pac money is not donated directly to candidates onenote Jul 2015 #30

Does sound a bit fishy. Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #31

Not so much "fishy" as ambiguous onenote Jul 2015 #32

Not "fishy" OR "ambiguous" - it's clearly stated in the article: George II Jul 2015 #42

I'm fairly certain the article was updated to clarify the 50,000 donation goal onenote Jul 2015 #45

The article was updated after 8PM tonight, I quoted it mid-afternoon.... George II Jul 2015 #46

The article was update multiple times during the day. onenote Jul 2015 #47

That's cause it wasn't the goal for the quarter, but for the closing week (or so) of the quarter. Adrahil Jul 2015 #34

That's what I suspected when I said the statement of the goal was ambiguous as to the period covered onenote Jul 2015 #35

Yup.... Adrahil Jul 2015 #36

See post #37 AND the article itself!!!! George II Jul 2015 #38

Woohoo!!! coyote Jul 2015 #23

That kind of money comes with favors due... Earth_First Jul 2015 #40