Sound Politics Public Blog: Huckabee outspent 7 to 1

February 02, 2008

Huckabee outspent 7 to 1

The numbers show, once again, either who is better at managing campaign monies, or who has a better item to sell. A Huckabee dollar will go nearly seven times as far as a Romney dollar, and they are nearly tied in the national polls. Could this be a taste of the kind of fiscal conservatism that could be brought back to the Whitehouse?

From a HucksArmy.Com press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 2, 2008  CONTACT Lucas Roebuck Public Affairs, HucksArmy.com 971.832.0247 hucksarmypress@gmail.com
HUCKABEE SPENT SEVEN TIMES LESS PER VOTE THAN ROMNEY
Huckabee $11.77 per vote, McCain $32.37 per vote, Romney $77.44 per vote
DEBT: Romney $35 million, McCain $4.5 million, Huckabee $97,600

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Based on quarterly filings with the FEC, Mike Huckabee has been the best financial manager of his campaign of the GOP candidates. Mitt Romney has not lived up to his reputation as a "great financial manager" -- his campaign has the worst efficiency and debt problems.

Huckabee spent a thrifty $11.77 per vote so far. John McCain spent nearly three times per vote more than Huckabee, dishing out $32.37 per vote. Romney splurged, spending almost seven times as much as Huckabee per vote, a whopping $77.44 each.

"Can you buy the White House? Mitt Romney looks like he is giving it a try," said Lucas Roebuck, Public Affairs Officer for HucksArmy.com. "If you want someone who can make your tax dollars stretch, you should vote for Huckabee."

Romney's campaign also has the biggest credit card. His campaign reported $35 million in debt, more than 360 times the amount of debt carried by Huckabee ($97,000). McCain has $4.5 million in debt.

McCain has $2.9 million cash on hand. Romney has $2.4 million. Huckabee has $1.9 million.

"If Romney were running this country like he's running his campaign, our national debt and budget deficits would be astronomical," said Roebuck. "Only Huckabee is running a surplus operation."

It's true that much of Romney's debt comes from personal loans to his campaign. Even after the election is over, Romney's campaign is allowed to raise money to pay the candidate back.

"Romney claims to not be beholden to Washington special interests," Roebuck said. "But if he wins, the special interest money -- which loves to pay off the winner -- will make sure that Romney in the end doesn't have to spend a dime of his own money. How is this not the most blatant form of buying influence?"

About HucksArmy.com
With core values of faith, family and freedom, HucksArmy.com is an online grassroots movement not owned or operated by any candidate or political campaign. With more than 16,000 recruits, HucksArmy.com is dedicated to mobilize support for candidates who honor God and country.

*Sources: AP, CNN. Caucus delegates and votes were counted from Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida, Nevada and South Carolina.

-Cydney

Cross-posted on The Celebrity.

Posted by Cydney at February 02, 2008 01:57 PM | Email This

Comments

1. I don't accept this "buy votes" stuff. The only people who EVER make a big deal out of it are the people who spend less, or the media trying to come up with something to talk about.

Yes, money matters -- you need it to win -- but there's nothing to the claim that votes are "bought" by spending more money. There is no serious correlation to number of votes versus money spent. The issue is more about name recognition and message, and, especially today, in 2008, money is less necessary than ever for either one.

It's not a real issue to me.

And further, the line about this IN ANY WAY relating to running a government on tax dollars is utter flummery. It's not even a good line, because it is so obviously silly, with no serious point behind it, as there is no reason to think there is any relationship between the two concepts.

Posted by: pudge on February 2, 2008 02:30 PM

2. Money does talk, pudge, as does a message.

Explain "utter flummery", pudge. Why is there no reason to think there is any relationship between the two concepts?

I was just throwing the thought out there.

Posted by: Cydney on February 2, 2008 02:42 PM

3. I guess the question here for me is this: If Huckabee had this kind of money, wouldn't he have spent it?

It's kinda like us having all this military force in Iraq... and then not using it.

Romney has the cash. He's gonna spend it. If Huckabee had the money, he'd spend it as well.

This is a non-issue, and Huckabee doesn't avail a heck of a lot by attempting to make this into an issue.

Posted by: Hinton on February 2, 2008 03:41 PM

4. Cydney: well, Huckabee's own press release is essentially self-refuting, because if money mattered that much, then Romney would be much further ahead than he is, wouldn't he?

There is no standard for this kind of stuff. Money mostly just gets you in the door, for people to get a look at you. Once people have done that -- as has happened for both Huckabee and Romney -- most of the rest is simply how much the people think you'd be the best candidate.

Here is the question: if Huckabee had spent as much as Romney, would he be much better off than he is now? I'd have to conclude No. So I don't see how it's an issue.

Posted by: pudge on February 2, 2008 06:03 PM

5. Ok, understood. But do you think that maybe Romney's had to bury himself further and further into debt in order to keep himself afloat, whereas Huckabee doesn't?

Just a thought.

Posted by: Cydney on February 2, 2008 09:15 PM

6. I disagree Pudge, I believe if Huckabee had spent even less than half of what Romney has (while Rudy continued to mess up) then Huckabee would have been the nominee. Whenever people hear him he picks up votes. Money is the megaphone and in the case of Romney it has proven that his huge megaphone doesn't completely hide the person that's behind it. In the case of Huckabee, his tiny little megaphone pales in comparison to the huge man standing behind it.

Huckabee is very similar to Ronald Reagan running for his second term. At that point in his Presidency Reagan was an economic populist and had reached his highest point at being the great communicator, and it was a landslide. That is where Huckabee is now, but doesn't have a big enough megaphone.

Posted by: Doug on February 3, 2008 11:39 AM

7. Cydney: I see no evidence of that, no.

Doug: the big difference between Reagand and Huckabee is that conservatives liked Reagan. The more many of us conservatives -- other than evangelical conservatives (and I consider myself an evangelical conservative, so obviously not ALL evangelical conservatives) -- hear Huckabee, the LESS we like him. He has had a TON of coverage in the press, so acting like he is not getting his voice out is nonsense.

Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 08:28 AM