That’s your quick summary of the Vermont congressional delegation’s latest quarterly fundraising reports, which were due Saturday to the Federal Election Commission. (See fundraising totals from state candidates here.)
From April through June, Sanders’ Senate reelection campaign raised nearly $1.3 million — almost entirely in donations of less than $100. It spent a little over $200,000, so the Sanders war chest continued to grow.
In fact, Sanders’ cash-on-hand totaled nearly $4.9 million as of June 30.
That’s got to be a chilling number for any Republican considering a run for U.S. Senate. Sanders, who faces reelection to a third six-year term in 2018, already has an insurmountable lead in fundraising — and he can seemingly produce millions more with a snap of his fingers.
A significant portion of Sanders’ second-quarter spending was directed toward travel and events, which makes sense considering Sanders’ frequent trips around the country for speeches and rallies. During the three-month period, the campaign spent $34,000 on airplane tickets alone.
The self-described independent also donated $100,000 in May to the Democratic National Committee, according to his FEC report.
Welch, who is up for reelection to a two-year term in 2018, also had a productive second quarter — thanks almost entirely to political action committees. Of the $101,000 his campaign committee raised, $97,000 came from corporate and other special-interest PACs.
But wait, there’s more: Of the scant $4,305 in contributions from actual individuals, more than half came from Washington, D.C., lobbyists.
Welch received donations of $1,000 or more from a total of 51 PACs. The most generous donor was the No Labels Problem Solvers PAC, which gave Welch $10,000. No Labels backs congressional moderates and those willing to work across the aisle, with the goal of creating “a stabilizing force within our Congress,” according to its website.
PACs representing Home Depot, Honeywell and the National Association of Convenience Stores gave Welch $5,000 apiece.
One of the many PACs that cut a $1,000 check to the Vermont congressman was News America Holdings’ PAC — as in Rupert Murdoch’s corporation. Yep, Peter Welch got a thousand bucks from the folks who run Fox News.
Welch was thrifty with his corporate dollars, spending a mere $33,000 on campaign expenses. His committee ended the quarter in fine financial shape for whatever 2018 might bring, with nearly $2 million cash-on-hand.
Meanwhile, it was a sleepy quarter for Leahy, who just won re-election last November and won’t face voters again until 2022. His campaign committee took in $32,000 and spent more than $100,000. He was the only one of Vermont’s three members of Congress whose expenditures exceeded receipts. Leahy accepted only $3,000 in PAC money; the rest consisted of small donations from individuals.
(Leahy and Welch also operate leadership PACs, through which they typically collect more special-interest money, but those aren’t required to report to the FEC until later this month.)
Despite the three months of red ink, the Leahy campaign ended the quarter with almost $1.9 million cash-on-hand. That’s a handsome war chest for a guy who doesn’t even have to think about running for reelection until 2021, at the earliest.
For someone who’s not in active political mode, Leahy spent a lot of money on consulting. He wrote three checks totaling $15,000 to Campaign Finance Consultants, a fundraising outfit, and more than $50,000 to Trilogy Interactive, a California-based firm specializing in “digital political strategy.”
All in all, Vermont’s three members of Congress are sitting pretty when it comes to campaign funds. And all three, in their own ways, seem capable of raising more money whenever they think they might possibly need it.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Sanders’ war chest is disgraceful. Especially since he won’t have meaningful opposition, if he has any at all. But even if he did have opposition, that amount of money is a disgrace. He could win reelection in 2918 with $50. He is exactly everything he rails against. That’s the definition of hypocrisy. Money changes everything.
He is doing fine work barnstorming the U.S. against Trump and McConnell’s agenda and has two Democrats planning revenge campaigns against him. There is no need for him to wear a potato sack because billionaires have too many tax cuts.
Actually, the fact that Sanders is able to amass such an amount without a pac or phony namesake foundation is impressive and is demonstrative of what politics should be. I don’t see how that is hypocritical.
It’s hypocritical because he absolutely, positively, definitively, 100% doesn’t need that kind of money, or anything remotely close to it, and because he’s constantly complaining and accusing others of “big money politics.” In the US’s smallest state, he’s raised $5 million (and counting) for an election that: a) is well over a year away; b) that he might not even run in; and c) he could probably win in a landslide without spending a single dollar. What he’s doing is raising money only because he can, and scaring off anybody from even dreaming of challenging him for the democratic nomination and the general election. That’s just downright undemocratic. This game of raising millions of dollars to “scare off” challengers is sick, sick, sick and he’s playing it just like the people he loves to criticize. Bernie says, “Get money out of politics — except for ME.” He shouldn’t be asking for this kind of out-of-state money and he shouldn’t be accepting it.
His donations are primarily made up of people who contribute less than $100. That’s a lot of people contributing to his campaign. That’s not a few big money institutes, Goldman Sachs for example, buying a politician. There’s a big difference.
As far as scaring people off, didn’t someone already come forward to challenge him in a race he might not even be running?
@knowyourassumptions …Senator Sanders is traveling around the country with that money attempting to save the healthcare of THOUSANDS of Vermonters on Medicare and millions of others across the country. Elderly, disabled, single parents, and children are going to suffer with the overthrow of the ACA. His money isn’t going towards nothing. And by the way, the definition of “big money in politics” relates to huge special interests and lobbyists giving money to candidates in order to buy their support and line their pockets. In this case, the “big money” your talking about isn’t just lining his pockets–its being spent on important issue advocacy and saving the healthcare of millions. You are obviously misguided on the definition of “big money in politics” and taking it totally out of context. He’s not using it to “scare off challengers,” he’s using it to actually WORK for his constituents…something other Senators should seriously consider if they want to keep their seats in 2018.
All right you Sanders worshipers, who think he is the almighty..you’re all wearing blindfolds..you need to take them off and look at the real pictures.. Saying he got all his war chest money from Vermonters is a big bs lie.
First off if it was true and everyone gave 100.00 there isn’t enough people in Vt to make even near that total, second there is still a lot of citizens in Vt who wouldn’t donate a penny to him..so that brings the amount down, WAY DOWN….
As for him traveling the country to help the elderly,disabled, single parents, veterans and children, is a crock!!! He’s been traveling for his own agender ..to push his book !!! On the taxpayers dime..We pay him to help Vermonters, not himself!!!! He won’t return peoples calls or letters, he can’t be bother..I know this for a FACT !!!
When he was running for pres he only showed up to vote 1 time in the senate..wow great senator..Not!!
He has been taking money from the lobbyist, the big PAC’S, and others..
He says things that people want to hear and then they believe him..but the truth is he talks out of his butt because his mouth knows better..
But you all just keep on believing the socialist liar while his bank account keeps growing.. Wonder how the digging of the FBI is going ???
oh and nothing is free..college etc..someone has to pay for it..yup you the TAXPAYERS !!! No one pay for my kids college..just us and my kids worked also..they didn’t take handouts they didn’t expect anything for free..
Bernie is going to use all the money for bail and lawyers. The guy and his wife are scumbags. #timetovotethebaldguysout
@ embeef2017
No, he’s not using the $$ for traveling around the country protecting us from Republicans, because he can’t use it for that.
This is for reelection to a totally safe seat — next year.
Bernie personifies hypocrisy. I wonder how much more campaign money there was that was used to fund the two so-called think tanks founded by him and the wife? I’ve never voted for him and never will. He is the epitome of the professional politician who has never had a real job in the private sector. As for the other two politicians who don’t represent me, they are bought and paid for by lobbyists/PACS. What this country needs is a way to limit the power of big money. That would be term limits and limits on how much money elected candidates actually get to keep. May I live long enough to get out of Vermont and see both of my dreams come true.
At least be consistent, knowyourassumptions. Your beloved Mayor Weinberger had, at one point, about $75K more then the next highest challenger running against him. Why does he need that much money to run for mayor of Burlington?
You talkin Weinberger’s 2015 re-election race? $75k for mayor’s race in Vermont’s largest city where Weinberger had three challengers in the general election (Goodkind, Guma, and Ploof)? Versus $5 MILLION and counting for a US Senate race in Vermont that is more than a year away and where Bernie will absolutely, positively not have a serious challenger, if there are any at all?
You’re actually comparing those two situations? Really? You’re kiddin, right?
It’s proportionate. Did Weinberger need over $75K to run for mayor? The next highest candidate had $5K.
Not even CLOSE to proportionate. Not remotely comparable financial situations.
And, when Weinberger ran for reelection in 2015, he had been an incumbent for 3 years.
When Bernie runs for re-election in 2018 with his $5 million-plus bag of loot, he’ll have been an incumbent in the Senate for 12 years, an incumbent in Congress for 28, and an incumbent in Vermont since 1980,
Not the same.
Nice try, though. Keep up your attempts to justify anything Bernie does and your crazy vilification of Weinberger!
Sure. Whatever you need to say to justify it. Meanwhile even the Burlington mayor race is dis-proportionally funded. Why does it cost so much to be elected mayor of Burlington? Does a private jet to the north end cost that much?