Politix

Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

PARTY ON

RNC Ends Year in the Black, Obama Campaign and DNC in Debt

Democrats could argue it's money well spent

Next>

by Lisa Fine

Staff Writer t

Image: CNN

Let the jokes begin on how Republicans are fiscally responsible and Democrats have a knack for deficit spending.

In what Democrats could certainly argue was money well spent, President Barack Obama's re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee ended 2012 in debt. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee turned their finances around and finished the year in the black.

Campaign finance reports filed Thursday showed Obama's campaign had $5.8 million of debt while the DNC, owed $21.4 million. The two groups ended the year with a combined $7.5 million in the bank, the Associated Press reports

The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, ended the year debt-free and starts 2013 with $4.7 million in the bank. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has not yet filed its report with the Federal Election Commission, the AP reports.

That's a far cry from how the RNC began the presidential cycle when it was saddled with $24 million in debt. The debt was mostly accrued under the leadership of former party chairman Michael Steele. It was a major issue in the re-election of party chairman Reince Priebus, who many credit for turning the finances around, Politico reports.

Via the Associated Press and Politico
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

What's your reaction to the budget news about the RNC and DNC?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • Fishbone345
    !
    @thejimbo The only story I see isn't really talked about. But, that's not surprising Politix (and most of America for that matter) treats anyone outside of the major parties as immature teen's, annoying and ineffective.
    They don't mention how much these piles of money makes it harder for others to run a legitimate campaign for President. We tell our children that if they dream big, anything is possible, that even they might be President someday. And we lie. We know too damn well, that the only way to that mansion on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is one paved with money.
    Both parties pay for the Presidency, its just that the Dems use a credit card and the Repubs use cash.
  • Fishbone345
    !
    @PoliticalSpice "Let repubs say they are fiscally responsible & dems are wasteful."
    It's one thing to have that attitude towards Campaign Financial management, its entirely another to have that mindset when it concerns the Federal Budget. I hope the Democrats don't carry that over to the budget.

    "Victory was worth every cent."
    On that I respectfully disagree. I sincerely hope that President Obama will overturn the Patriot Act, NDAA 12 and DOMA, but I have a feeling he won't. Surprising given his current stance on Gay Marriage. Its one thing to support it, another when it comes to making it a reality.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    @Fishbone345 I stand by victory was worth every cent. Except paul, who was strongly rejected by his party, repubs are not planning, discussing, or introducing any serious effirts to overturn patriot, ndaa, real ID or other efforts to curtail 4th 5th & 6th amndments. Give both parties back these and do nothing about them I looked at the other policies, the ones they differ on. You probably disagree because you're a free market kinda guy, but on policies where thd parties differ obama was an easy choice for me. If paul had been ninated it would have been far more difficult for me to decide. As for DOMA no need for obama to do a thing. Just sit back and wait on the supremes. Pretty sure based on clear constitutional language, and court precedent on sexual
    Privacy issues, that states will be required to recognize marriages from other states. Less worried about the ca. law if that happens could folks could just take a weekend and get married out of state...
  • Fishbone345
    !
    @PoliticalSpice "Except paul, who was strongly rejected by his party, repubs are not planning, discussing, or introducing any serious effirts to overturn patriot, ndaa, real ID or other efforts to curtail 4th 5th & 6th amndments."
    Yes, I know this. Its why I didn't vote their way, but if Democrats sit idly by and do the same thing, then they are just as much a part of the problem in my eyes.
    Sitting back and waiting for the SCOTUS to do something about DOMA isn't really acting on what Obama told people. Telling gays that he supports them and then doing nothing, isn't really support, its just pandering. It's hard to look at Republicans who say he's all talk and say they are wrong. Because so far, he is.
  • View all 22 replies >
  • Fishbone345
    !
    Yah, that will sure level the playing field won't it? Continuing to support a two party choke hold on our politics is what is making things worse for the country and the People. More money is not going to solve that problem, it contributes to it.
    Aren't you sick of choosing between a Douche and a Turd Sandwich (SP reference)? Why are we not given better options? Well, because the parties want puppets in office, and they pretty much look at the American people and dare us to go against their plan.
    The more people rely on and continue to support a Two Party system, the worse things will become. The only thing they are is two sides to the same losing coin.
  • AlexMIA
    !
    @Fishbone345 I'll agree with you there! But the party on top now is the one attacking my rights and values the most!
  • Fishbone345
    !
    @AlexMIA Don't confuse my statement with support for the Democrats. In my mind they are just as bad as their opponents.
    Keep in mind it was the party "Not on top now" that came up with lovely liberty strippers like Patriot Act, DOMA and NDAA 12.
    Both parties only care about their own salvation and continued existence. Anyone that thinks they have any interest in their constituents that don't donate generously, is fooling themselves.
  • u
    commonsense51
    !
    Doesn't this just show you how correct the GOP have been when they say the Democrats could care less about our debt. These Democrats refuse cutting spending in our nation's debt and even in their own campaign money. What a bunch of irresponsible losers.
  • Fishbone345
    !
    Actually what it shows, is that both are willing to throw money at problems. Don't think for a minute that the GOP would have sold their souls to the devil for the White House, that they wouldn't have. They just didn't go as overboard as the Democrats.
    Also, keep in mind total amounts of money. They didn't have the same amount and the Dems spent foolishly. The GOP had more, period. Have you forgotten all the stories in the press and on this site about how much the Republicans had over the Democrats? I seem to remember some pretty cocky posters talking about it daily.
  • u
    commonsense51
    !
    @Fishbone345 You are wrong about the GOP selling their souls to get elected. The GOP take stands on issues that are not politically popular for election such as Pro life, pro strong defense, not over taxing the rich to give to those with less money. These issues are things they actually believe in and have never wavered on for sake of getting elected. The Democrats constantly take polls to see what issues will help them get elected. They have no core values or morals to stand on. Democrats pander to people's base selfishness. Handing out free stuff for people who screwed their lives up. Free birth control.... bailouts for home mortgages, housing subsidies, free healthcare, taxing more from the rich and giving to welfare addicts, etc. etc. All these things help them get elected at the expense of our nation going bankrupt.
  • View all 10 replies >
  • u
    Raptor
    !
    It takes more than just a billion dollars to be President, yes and it just going to get worse until you limit the amount that politicians can spend. No more corporate contributions and a fixed amount for private contributions and get rid of the pac's and then the lobbyists, then you will have done the best you can.
  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    "Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has not yet filed its report with the Federal Election Commission... " So, the whole story isn't ready for prime time yet. Why are you giving us a partial story, Politix?
  • kathyparsell
    !
    If true the Democrates call indeed say money well spent for their objective. The downside of course, they are in let RED just like our ECONOMY.
  • u
    BelinKS
    !
    The Obama campaign started with many millions already in the bank. They definitely spent too much. The Republicans nominated a patsy because they knew they were unlikely to win. Why waste a perfectly good candidate on an assumably unwinable election? I guess the Dems didn't catch on.
    Also, I do believe Republicans will always be good at knowing when and how much to spend. Conservatives! When they do put in a candidate that can win, they will raise more money and strive to stay in the black.
  • Fishbone345
    !
    "The Republicans nominated a patsy because they knew they were unlikely to win. Why waste a perfectly good candidate on an assumably unwinable election? I guess the Dems didn't catch on."
    Uh.... what? At what point pre-November 6th was anyone in the GOP saying they were going to lose? Do you remember differently than reality? Because nearly everyone whom voted for him on this site said Romney would win, and it was the same out in the media circles and Fox news.

    "Also, I do believe Republicans will always be good at knowing when and how much to spend."
    Not true. They have contributed just as much to overspending, they just do it in different areas of the budget. Reducing the Welfare budget and increasing Defense spending isn't fiscal responsibility no matter how you label it.

    "When they do put in a candidate that can win, they will raise more money and strive to stay in the black."
    They didn't put Romney in because they thought it might be fun, knowing they would lose. That's absurd. The people in the party voted for him because they thought he was their best chance at winning. Your recollection of events is a bit off.
    I have some advice for that last part. Don't alienate Undecided voters. People don't like being insulted, Who Knew?!
  • u
    BelinKS
    !
    @Fishbone345
    Look at Mitt Romney. Now look at all the Republicans that would have been much better candidates. I believe it's quite obvious. I really don't have much I don't like about Romney. There is some, like being the one who originally came up with what is now called Obamacare. Also, how do you think the country felt about Romney being a Morman? We're not that progressive yet as to vote in a president whose religious beliefs most do not understand. We know what a Methodist is(Obama's).
  • Fishbone345
    !
    @BelinKS " Look at Mitt Romney. Now look at all the Republicans that would have been much better candidates."
    I have. Ron Paul would have been ten times better than who won and who ran against him. But, if there were better candidates why weren't they chosen? Why did the party officially elect Romney to represent them? Seems to me if you thought a guy would lose, you wouldn't select him to run.

    "I really don't have much I don't like about Romney. There is some, like being the one who originally came up with what is now called Obamacare."
    I think you'd be surprised how many issues they both stand the same on. Mitt is essentially the same guy.

    "Also, how do you think the country felt about Romney being a Morman?"
    Well, the ones I spoke with said it shouldn't have been an issue and that it was the same as racism. So according to those points of view, they shouldn't have cared. I think in the end though, voting for a "Socialist" was worse.
  • u
    BelinKS
    !
    @Fishbone345
    I agree. But people were very uneasy about a Morman and this country was so gun ho about Obama, that there was no way he was going to lose. If the idiots would stop listening to "celebrities" and voting according to what they say, things would be a lot different. George Clooney couldn't shut up and he doesn't even live in the U.S. Oprah Winfrey was the one who introduced Obama to the country when he became a senator and was a guest on her show. She proclaimed him as the future president then.
  • View all 11 replies >
  • u
    lonestar82
    !
    This is stupid. Parties are supposed to be about bettering the country not trying to outdo each other. I think the parties should be abolished and individuals should run based on their beliefs and intentions instead being glamorized puppets fulfilling so unnamed jerk agenda.