How much does it cost to become the leader of the free world? Not much if you’re Donald Trump – but the Republican party is reportedly dismayed by their presidential nominee’s apparent aversion to that key propellant in American politics: cold, hard cash.
New figures show that Hillary Clinton’s war chest – $42.5m (£28.8m) – beats Trump’s – $1.3m – by 32 to 1. If Clinton is holding a briefcase of notes, Trump could stuff his loose change into the pocket of a Trump-branded blazer (made in China, obvs).
Does it matter? That big spenders don’t always win should be clear to Bernie Sanders. According to the Federal Election Commission, Sanders has received total contributions of $207.6m, compared with Clinton’s $204.3m. Trump? $57.7m, which, even now, remains less than his long-since vanquished Republican rivals Ted Cruz and Ben Carson.
Trump cites his frugality as a good thing, but that he has so little left to spend is adding to a sense of chaos in his camp. No candidate has turned a discrepancy of such scale into victory. In 2008, Obama raised $747.8m to John McCain’s $351.5m. The gap was slightly narrower in 2012 (Obama: $722.4m, Romney: $449.9m). The last time a Republican raised more cash, he won. In 2004, George W Bush received $367.2m. As he did at the polls, John Kerry trailed only slightly behind with $328.5m.
To find the last presidents who spent significantly less and won (it was pretty even in 1996, when Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole), we have to go back to 1976, when Jimmy Carter spent $10m less than Gerald Ford. The 1960s were the golden age of the small spenders: Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all did more than their rivals with less.
If Trump does lose, there will be solace in the knowledge that not all of his funds will go to waste. Last month, more than $1m of his campaign spending went on his own companies, including $423,000 on facility rental and catering at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort.
