Final Bill: Clinton Campaign Spent Record $1.2 Billion

Photo: Tim Pierce / CC-BY
Photo: Tim Pierce / CC-BY
Hillary Clinton and her supporters spent $1.2 billion — a record amount — for her last campaign for president. It is an interesting figure since Donald Trump, who was criticized for not raising money, was able to secure his win with half that amount.

The Clinton campaign still had $839,000 on hand as of Nov. 28.

Of Trump’s fund, he personally contributed $66 million from his own pocket. He had estimated that he would spent $100 million but apparently was able to score a savings of $34 million in grabbing the win.

What is interesting is that, despite $1.2 billion, Democratic leaders are saying that there is no need for a change in leadership or direction for the party because the problem was not educating voters enough. That is a record amount spent on messaging and campaigning but was still not enough against one of the most controversial candidates in U.S. history and someone who spent half of what Clinton spent per vote.

85 thoughts on “Final Bill: Clinton Campaign Spent Record $1.2 Billion”

  1. That last sentence could have been soooo much worse. Verbally or in terms of years to serve. Any of those donors going to file a fraud suit considering the money Bill is reported to have moved to Canada. Does Hillary know he’s moved all that money offshore?

  2. The big question or maybe two of them still remains. Apparently unsolved, or perhaps not investigated. IF Hillary managed to do four years in government service with out a security briefing then the following had HAD to have happened.

    Someone in the State Department failed to do their job. That would be the State Department dude or dudette in charge of their National Security Program. No matter if she refused it (which means multiple times), ordered the individual to not provide one (again multiple times), or if she really is a dumb ass and didn’t think about it (again it still has to be scheduled and given multiple times.

    But let’s focus on the individual. Is their paperwork to show she did take the required briefings and if so where are they filed? If she refused it etc. A copy is required as a report up to the National Security Agency then sideways to the President and the Congress.

    At the very least a record of attempts to give the briefings has to be on file somewhere with a copy in the ‘individual responsible’ files and personal files. That’s a CYA or cover your ass document.

    What’s all this mean. Well it could mean with 1.2 billion to spend someone lined their pockets.

    Or she signed off on the form but didn’t receive the briefing as stated,

    Or someone, the responsibile individual helped or was coerced, or paid off or even volunteered to cover her tracks?

    Who knows? Well the FBI damn well ought to know and so should the National Security Agency.

    Somewhere there lies an answer to the mystery. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get away without one of those entry and follow on briefings for four years.

    Somwhere someone is due for a set of handcuffs and some jail time.

    Doesn’t have to be Hillary. ALTHOUGH there is no way she shouldn’t have known better. Like what do the letters C, S, TS mean?

    Another part of the swamp that needs draining…

  3. So JT, are you still so proud of Kellyanne Conawy? That girl is a soulless herodian. F Her.

  4. Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 17m17 minutes ago

    Nate Silver Retweeted Jack Shafer

    Comey had a large, measurable impact on the race. Harder to say with Russia/Wikileaks because it was drip-drip-drip.

    Nate Silver added,

  5. While Obama is looking into alleged Russian interference in our election, why doesn’t he look into the fact that as secretary of state, Hillary approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium to Putin and Russia while 9 investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    1. Ain’t gonna happen under Obama. Hillary and Bill are guity as sin, but ain’t gonna happen…..

  6. And to think if the libs would have taken that money and “re-distributed” to those in need to make life fair. They really don’t practice what they preach.

  7. This, among many powerful examples, just goes to show that all the liberal/progressive hysteria about Citizen’s United is an inflated balloon of hot air.

    The fear that the Citizen’s United (against Hillary Clinton no less) case would enable the richer candidate to always win, and that money alone would guarantee the election, and would turn our country into an oligarchy.

    It has not happened for at least six recent elections that I can name, where the richer candidate outspent the poorer candidate by several factors, and the poorer candidate still won. Just as it had with this year’s presidency.

    Citizen’s United was actually simply a SCOTUS decision guaranteeing collectives of people as having the same freedom of speech rights as the individual person that make it up.

    1. These millions of dollars are part for the contest to see which group of billionaires rules the world. Both sides pump out self serving BS that aim to brainwash the majority with the pretense of democracy.

  8. There was another TV ad which I fell for. It had to do with medical coverage. They kept saying “ask your doctor”. So when I asked my doctor in here in the asylum about the TV ad he said that it was all a hoax and do not listen to ads on TV. Good advice. So I said: Doctor, doctor, what you say. How bout lettin me out today. Ain’t reason for me to stay cause everybody’s far away.
    And the doctor said that that set of questions and statements was from an old song and I must have heard it. He said Randy Newman. I don’t recall. Anyone know about that? I just wanted out and I got a lecture.

  9. Simply amazing that Prof. Turley fails to pick up on the incredibly obvious point that a substantial portion of that $1.2 billion went to the mainstream media directly or indirectly. And nobody can honestly say that the mainstream media didn’t do its best to help Clinton get elected.

    What would be truly helpful is if Prof. Turley would call for legislation that would make the sources and uses of funds for political campaigns totally transparent. That is, there should be a law requiring (1) ALL candidates for public office to identify the payee of ANY contribution or income source and the payment amount, showing the sources for all funds contributed, including dates and the address of the payee (with PO box numbers prohibited); (2) ALL payments made by or on behalf of the politician running for office, whether by cash, check, wire, or ACH, identifying the payee, address (with PO box numbers prohibited), and the reason for the payment and dates of payments; (3) a publicly published and available LIST showing every entry in (1) and (2).

    Of course, such a law would never actually happen, because political campaigns are loaded to the gills with fraud, corruption, and illegal acts and such lists would enable real investigators to identify those acts, even if straw men are used for the transactions. But it would still be a good idea to recommend my proposal, as a constant reminder that the REASON my idea isn’t law is BECAUSE it would expose political fraud, corruption, and crime. And the politicians, their corporate beneficiaries, and the lawyers that protect them can’t have that.

    1. Ralph:

      I live in a rural area; the US Postal Service lists my address as a PO Box, into which it delivers all my mail. I don’t have an actual street/road address.

      Under your proposal, I would be disenfranchised from participating in the political process. What justification can you give for that?

      Or, are you merely one of the establishment sore-losers, who think the lives and votes of people like me in ‘Fly-Over-Country’ don’t count?

      1. Well accept the fact that the left doesn’t think anything east of the left coast and the least coast above the Mason Dixon line count. It used to be larger but that was before they lost all the states west of the Apple Chains. Then work to make that segment of nobodies evern smaller. .

  10. You don’t need to pay for publicity when the lamestream media gives it to you for free. The celebrity of Trump was used by the media to generate ratings at no cost to him.

  11. The campaign ads had some sway over me and I voted for Hillary. Now, after the election with the recent appointments and whatnot I regret my vote. I like The Donald now. Time will tell. Next time I will throw away my television or not watch any ads.

    1. Jack Ruby – I dvr all my programs and then fast forward thru the commercials.

      1. i told the TV store unless they had an auto mute or volume decrease for commercials forget about it. Twenty some years ago. The TV went to the dumpster and life had been SOOOOOOO good without that crap.My best day since was in the supermarket where I didn’t recognize a single name or face on the tabloids at the checkout counter.

  12. @JT
    “Hillary Clinton and her supporters spent $1.2 billion — a record amount — for her last campaign for president. It is an interesting figure since Donald Trump, who was criticized for not raising money, was able to secure his win with half that amount.”

    Yes, Corporate Media sponsorship and propaganda on a candidate’s behalf, such as Clinton enjoyed, is very expensive, even when the CM and the candidate share the same political agenda.

    1. He did raise some money and often ran a two fer deal. I’l match every one of yours with two of mine. Not to mention the Trump Store with basebal caps etc. None of which promised any play for paying. However the campaign did run an extensive vote survey of key issues and opinions and really did answer some of the written comments and use them as part of the campaign and is still using them in an after win set of surveys. I signed up for the same treatment from the other side but… well i didn’t it wasn’t offered.

  13. It’s fascinating to me that the mainstream media has ignored the evident fact that the Party most closely identified with the crusade to “take money out of politics” is by far the bigger spender.

  14. I could gloat, I could be happy in finding revenge, I could sing Ding Dong the Witch is DEAD…..but why bother. What’s important is statistical ratios.

    One point two billion for a $300,000 a year job works out to 4000 years or 1,000 administrations. Was she worth the price even with Pay For Play? Whiir hummmm click click Survey Says! “Are you joking me?

    Trump’s ratio is even greater. It says he spent half the amount to win. so let’s do the math . 600 million or a job that will pay $8.00 over eight years means savings in tax dollars of $3,999,992.

    I wonder if Hillary is going to get the 20 year deduction?

    Whirr hummmm click clic Surveyi Sez? if you had to ask go back to 1st grade Arithmetic

    Real question is the same one for every four years? How much debt will the Democrats be in this time AFTER they pay out the one point two billion. Hillarry’s campaign claimed an excess. Did that count refunds from the Clinton Fund? Did it count what the DNC spent?

    Maybe (don’t choke when from laughing when your read this) maybe ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC along with a ton of LSM’s will ‘forgive’ the debt?

    Maybe their stock holders will pick new management.

    . Survey says. No Way and For Sure.

    Looks like the establishment took a bath.

    1. Are the Clintons not the second most abhorrent politicians over the last decade? Have they not delegitimized themselves by wanton disregard for truth? Do they not continue to insult the intelligence of the general public? Thus, a belated question. Where did $1.2 billion to fund the Clinton campaign exactly come from? Dare I suggest $$$$ came from hobnobbing, like-minded, self-serving, plutocrats? Dare I suggest $$$$ & politics are closely intertwined? Clearly, many Clinton financial supporters & intermediaries closed ranks to BUY this election. Happily, Clinton hoodwinked herself by believing in the gullibility of a dumbed down society. In short, Clinton snookered herself while attempting to bamboozle us.

      1. Not directly to do with the topic but indirectly is the following CNN piece which did not allow comment as they claimed would be available.

        The video and accompanying written section lists the various ethnic groups in danger of extinction in Iraq. It is counterpart to the same list in Syria except in Iraq one group is apparently already extinct. – The Bahai’

        Of note this list is the same list that has been at the bottom of the deck in the Obama Regimes list of allowable immigrants while the group that has and is causing the genocide in those two countries was projected for 55,000 and did get 10,000 in the USA. The others? A total of 55.

        I just wanted to add that in as a comment on the real record of the real human rights and anti-genocide policies of the fascist war monger left and another damn good reason to drive the money spenders from the temple.

        As for Hillary and company? Bight, ME it’s a town in the North East.

Comments are closed.