<p>The Obama campaign has finally announced their February fundraising total - $55 million, the highest amount ever raised by a candidate in a single month. Most of it was in small donations, and $45 million was donated over the internet. The advantage of small donors is that they can continue donating. I made my third donation yesterday morning.</p>
<p>Hope he keeps his pledge to stick to public financing in the general :)</p>
<p>So do I. Because it means he’ll be in the general.</p>
<p>If you look at his statement, his pledge was contingent on the Republican nominee also accepting public financing. No one would make such a pledge unilaterally.</p>
<p>Indeed it was. McCain has already said he will stick to his pledge, hopefully Obama will stick to his.</p>
<p>McCain <em>must</em> take public financing. He promised those dollars as collateral for the loan he received when his campaign was in dire straits last year. </p>
<p>By the way, he’s raised $12 mil to Obama’s $55. I’m not sure if Clinton has released her fundraising numbers yet. </p>
<p>In every area, the Democrats are outraising the Republicans and are carrying less debt. The Democrats are also turning out massive numbers in the primaries/caucases, often a 2:1 ratio over the Republicans. The Republicans have had over 25 sitting members of Congress decide not to run for re-election, some because they have their sights set on moving up to the Senate, others because they scent ‘Change’ on the wind and want to get cushy lobbying jobs while they still can. When an incumbent, who has a natural advantage in their race, decides not to run, you know they know something big is about to happen.</p>
<p>McCain doesn’t have to take public financing if he doesn’t want to. He’s taking it because he agreed to do this before he got the nomination, he’s a man of his word. I just hope Obama is the same kind of man…</p>
<p>Clinton needs a better accountant.</p>
<p>she raised more than $6 million in less than 48 hrs.</p>
<p>Why won’t the Clintons release their tax returns? I want to know what the skeletons are, if there are any, before it’s too late. She owes this to her supporters and to all Democrats. They have earned “somewhere between 10 and 50 million” according to them. That’s a pretty wide spread. How much did they earn, and where did it come from?</p>
<p>A.S.A.P. , I don’t think that question has been answered.</p>
<p>This popped up when I googled your question, because I was curious as well. For clarification, this is an opinion posted, not mine. However, it presents an interesting point of view. I am sure that there are many others! I don’t think that the answer about time to prepare offered by Hillary herself is completely accurate. The information for 2006 return should have been submitted last April. It should be pretty easy to get one of her campaign staff to make copies of that. That takes no “preparation” on her part. 
</p>
<p>From huffington post Feb 13 blog article, "The question at hand is why Senator Clinton is allowing this to remain a political issue, and encouraging us to savor the hidden treasures – questionable sources of income, wily tax moves, inappropriate pantsuit deductions – rather than swiftly removing it from the table by taking those suckers out of the vault? </p>
<p>Does her refusal entitle us to think the worse? I believe it does, given that her campaign is masterful at calculation, that it must have done the strategic arithmetic and decided that the heat they’re taking for non-disclosure is less hellish than the alternative. After all, as ABC pointed out, “Only tax forms would reveal whether a wealthy candidate – many of the 2008 candidates are multimillionaires – have used loopholes to duck taxes.”</p>
<p>Senator Clinton’s position is symptomatic of a deeply troubling, imbricated pattern of her campaign: selectively playing-by-the-rules, while universally claiming the high ground as both moral leader and political victim. "</p>
<p>Does anybody have the address for mailing in donations? I’d love to submit a change of address form. On a more serious note, neither candidate will be accepting public financing for the general election according to the 24 hour news channels.</p>
<p>It’s not just the loopholes I worry about, but whether the McCain campaign could exploit whatever connections Bill’s business deals have forged with the Saudis or other foreign interests. The Republicans could make a big deal out of it, even if there is nothing illegal about any of it, because they could paint the Clintons as owing political favors for their millions. We need to know what we would be dealing with.</p>
<p>^ In fairness, I don’t believe McCain has released his either. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>No- but he isn’t running against anyone yet. </p>
<p>Also, I doubt that his income last year was in the tens of millions. I think his returns will be a bit dull by comparison.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with you A.S.A. P. Many people are probably much more concerned about the unexplained Clinton “sudden affluence” than the tax loopholes! </p>
<p>The Clintons have earned millions legitimately, from their books and Bill’s enormous speaking fees. But he has been involved in some questionable situations, and there are questions about donors to his presidential library (information also not released). There is no excuse for not releasing 2006 tax returns. If there is anything damaging there, the Democrats deserve to know about it now.</p>
<p>A.S.A.P., did you see the Feb. 18 Newsweek article with the title above?</p>
<p>From that, "Clinton, unlike rival Barack Obama, has not released her tax returns. But disclosure forms that Clinton filed with the Senate provide some clues to her family finances. They show Bill Clinton has earned tens of millions of dollars in recent years giving speeches at rates of up to $450,000 apiece. During one week in 2006, the former president collected $1.7 million for talks in Europe and South Africa. (He also collected speaking fees from Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, the Mortgage Bankers Association and other big firms.) The documents are more circumspect about other Clinton financial interests, including his annual income as a “partner” in billionaire pal Ron Burkle’s businesses and from Vinod Gupta’s InfoUSA. Both payouts are listed as "over $1,000"a description that is legally adequate but not very enlightening. Clinton spokespeople recently said the former president is preparing to sever his dealings with Burkle and Gupta “should Senator Clinton become the Democratic nominee,” in order to avoid any conflicts. But Gupta, whose firm has paid Bill at least $3.3 million since 2003, told NEWSWEEK that he is still paying fees to him; Burkle’s spokesman could not be reached for comment.</p>
<p>When the Clintons left the White House, they were drowning in legal bills. But by last year, they had sufficient cash flow to pay off the mortgage on their home in Washington, D.C. According to local property records, they took out a 30-year, $1.995 million mortgage in 2001 but paid it off in full last November. (The Clintons also own a home in Chappaqua, N.Y., but there is no record of a similar mortgage payoff.) "</p>
<p>I didn’t see the Newsweek article, but others have been swirling around. I worry about articles like that and this one from the NYPost, notable for its
stirring up controversy for dems.</p>
<p>[BILL’S</a> UGLY BUDDY - New York Post](<a href=“BILL’S UGLY BUDDY”>BILL’S UGLY BUDDY)</p>
<p>It’s not so much the money. It’s the “favors” that will worry the voters.</p>
<p>Yet, the Clinton campaign continues to question Obama’s real estate “transactions” ? Another double standard I guess.</p>