web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Campaign Finance

Pete Buttigieg’s Dash for Cash: 10 Fund-Raisers in Two Weeks

In the compressed and crucial weeks between the New Hampshire primary and Super Tuesday, Pete Buttigieg is moving aggressively to replenish his campaign coffers with an ambitious schedule of 10 fund-raisers held across six states in a 14-day period.

The money chase for Mr. Buttigieg began in Indianapolis on Thursday at the 16,000-square foot home of a supporter as donors noshed on egg salad and cucumber sandwiches — “What a thrill to be back home again in Indiana,” Mr. Buttigieg said — and continued on Friday in California, as he traveled from San Francisco to Silicon Valley to the state capital of Sacramento for a photo line with contributors.

He will soon visit Seattle, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, the Washington D.C. area, Miami and Palm Beach — with most of the events built around states that will vote in early March.

Pete Buttigieg’s Fund-Raisers





#g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-box , #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-box .g-artboard { margin:0 auto; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-box p { margin:0; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-box .g-aiAbs { position:absolute; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-box .g-aiImg { position:absolute; top:0; display:block; width:100% !important; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-box .g-aiSymbol { position: absolute; box-sizing: border-box; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-box .g-aiPointText p { white-space: nowrap; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-600 { position:relative; overflow:hidden; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-600 p { font-family:nyt-franklin,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-weight:600; line-height:14px; height:auto; filter:alpha(opacity=100); -ms-filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=100); opacity:1; letter-spacing:0em; font-size:12px; text-align:left; color:rgb(0,0,0); top:1px; position:static; text-transform:none; padding-bottom:0; padding-top:0; mix-blend-mode:normal; font-style:normal; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-600 .g-pstyle0 { height:14px; position:relative; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-600 .g-pstyle1 { font-weight:500; line-height:13px; height:13px; font-size:11px; top:0.9px; position:relative; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-600 .g-pstyle2 { height:14px; color:rgb(102,102,102); position:relative; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-600 .g-pstyle3 { height:14px; text-align:right; color:rgb(102,102,102); position:relative; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-600 .g-pstyle4 { font-weight:500; line-height:22px; height:22px; font-size:16px; top:1.3px; position:relative; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-335 { position:relative; overflow:hidden; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-335 p { font-family:nyt-franklin,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-weight:500; line-height:12px; height:auto; filter:alpha(opacity=100); -ms-filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=100); opacity:1; letter-spacing:0em; font-size:11px; text-align:left; color:rgb(0,0,0); top:0.9px; position:static; text-transform:none; padding-bottom:0; padding-top:0; mix-blend-mode:normal; font-style:normal; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-335 .g-pstyle0 { height:12px; position:relative; } #g-0215-nat-web-PETEmap-335 .g-pstyle1 { line-height:21px; height:21px; font-size:14px; top:1.1px; position:relative; }

Westlake Legal Group 0215-nat-web-PETEmap-600 Pete Buttigieg’s Dash for Cash: 10 Fund-Raisers in Two Weeks United States Politics and Government Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Democratic Party Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Buttigieg, Chasten Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr Beyer, Donald S Jr

Seattle

Feb. 15

Milwaukee

Cleveland

Madison

San Francisco

Feb. 14

Salt Lake City

Feb. 17

Baltimore

Washington

Feb. 23

Washington

Indianapolis

Feb. 13

Denver

Richmond

Palo Alto

Feb. 14

Charlottesville

Los Angeles

Feb. 20

Phoenix

Palm Beach

Feb. 26

Wellington

Feb. 26

Miami

Feb. 26

Attended by Mr. Buttigieg

Attended by his husband or staff

Westlake Legal Group 0215-nat-web-PETEmap-335 Pete Buttigieg’s Dash for Cash: 10 Fund-Raisers in Two Weeks United States Politics and Government Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Democratic Party Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Buttigieg, Chasten Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr Beyer, Donald S Jr

Seattle

Feb. 15

San Francisco

Feb. 14

Washington

Feb. 23

Salt Lake City

Feb. 17

Indianapolis

Feb. 13

Palo Alto

Los Angeles

Feb. 20

Palm

Beach

Wellington

Feb. 26

Miami

Attended by Mr. Buttigieg

Attended by his husband or staff


By The New York Times

In addition to Mr. Buttigieg himself, his national policy director, Sonal Shah, a veteran of the Obama administration and Goldman Sachs, is hitting the road to headline events in Virginia, Maryland and Ohio, where donors are asked for up to $2,800 to become a “champion” and join in a “policy conversation” (some tickets can be had for as little as $54). And Mr. Buttigieg’s husband, Chasten, is featured at another five events, with two stops in Wisconsin, two in Denver and one in Phoenix.

The frenetic fund-raising pace opens up Mr. Buttigieg to potential criticism from progressives that he is the preferred candidate of the wealthy. That is a line of attack that both Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (“I don’t have 40 billionaires, Pete”) and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (“The mayor just recently had a fund-raiser that was held in a wine cave full of crystals”) have relished in recent months.

A virtually unknown small-town mayor a year ago, Mr. Buttigieg built a sizable list of small online donors and a formidable big bundler operation in 2019.

The need for money is acute as the candidates enter one of the most intense phases of the primary with consequential contests on each of the next two Saturdays, in Nevada and South Carolina. The latter state will be followed almost immediately by 15 states and territories on the next Tuesday, including the big prizes of California and Texas, where the cost of advertising can be prohibitive.

With the most delegates after the first two contests, Mr. Buttigieg, who ended two terms as mayor of South Bend, Ind., last month, now faces one rival in Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York City mayor, who has almost limitless money, and another in Mr. Sanders whose army of small contributors have been giving in accelerating amounts. Tom Steyer, a hedge fund billionaire from California, has been spending heavily, and rising in the polls, in Nevada and South Carolina.

Mr. Buttigieg had entered 2020 with $14.5 million in the bank. But his pace of spending since then burned through much of that sum and some of his money is earmarked for the general election and cannot be spent in the primary.

His monthly payroll had climbed to $2.7 million by December, federal filings showed. He spent $2.5 million on Facebook and Google ads since Jan. 1, company records show. And Mr. Buttigieg invested $6.5 million in television ads from Jan 1. through the New Hampshire primary this past Tuesday, according to Advertising Analytics, a media tracking firm. Plus, there are the other costs to run for president that are only growing — chartered planes, renting event space, polling, consulting fees and more. His campaign reported a single $761,039 credit card payment in December, for instance.

In the final quarter, Mr. Buttigieg raised $24.7 million, though he spent far more than that during the three-month period, about $34 million. Other candidates, including Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren, similarly spent more than they raised as the primaries neared.

His advisers have previously told donors that they were investing almost everything in Iowa, where he earned the most state delegate equivalents, and New Hampshire, where he finished a strong second, in hopes that command performances in those two states would open up political and financial opportunities beyond.

“All the chips were on the table for Iowa,” said David Jacobson, a Buttigieg fund-raiser and former ambassador.

“It was money well spent,” said Robert Mandell, another former ambassador and Buttigieg fund-raiser.

But the impact of Mr. Buttigieg’s apparent win in Iowa was dampened by the delayed and muddled results that are still subject to a recanvass. His campaign announced he had raised $4 million in the four days afterward. That is a significant sum but still less than what rival strategists said might have otherwise been expected for winning the opening contest.

Mr. Sanders was raising money at a clip of well above $1 million per day online in early February, according to an estimate based on figures released by his campaign. And that was before he won the New Hampshire primary. Ms. Warren’s campaign told supporters this week she had raised $5 million in the nine days following the Iowa caucuses. Neither senator is accepting contributions from elite donors.

One of Mr. Buttigieg’s events will be on Feb. 23 at the home of Representative Don Beyer, a Virginia Democrat and the first member of Congress to endorse him, with five other congressional co-hosts. Three days later, he will hold three fund-raisers across Florida — which does not hold its primary until March 17 — including one in Palm Beach whose hosts include Cynthia Friedman, a longtime Democratic contributor.

The campaign had sent invitations to even more events, including in Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., on Feb. 27 — the $500 level ticket is listed as sold out online for the Atlanta gathering — but Buttigieg aides said those events have been canceled.

Mr. Buttigieg is not alone on the fund-raising circuit. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. organized a conference call with his national finance committee after his fifth place New Hampshire finish to reassure skittish donors. He has upcoming fund-raisers in Colorado, Nevada and South Carolina, the latter two in states that vote later this month.

On Thursday, Mr. Biden held two events in New York that drew a notable group of Wall Street contributors. Organizers said the events raised almost $800,000, a large haul for a candidate who had sagged to fourth and fifth place in the first two contests. Mr. Biden also said on “The View” this week that he was raising about $400,000 per day in online donations.

That same evening, Michael Halle, a top strategist for Mr. Buttigieg, was in Washington meeting with donors, with contribution levels up to $1,000 (other Buttigieg advisers, including Lis Smith and Michael Schmuhl have previously headlined fund-raisers).

Both Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg have been assisted by super PACs, which are legally barred from coordinating strategy with the campaigns. Mr. Halle drew some criticism for a post on Twitter two days after the Iowa caucuses all-but-directing where such support could best be used.

The Buttigieg campaign announced expanding its Super Tuesday operations on Thursday, saying it would have “boots on the ground” in each of the states as of next Monday. That is far later than Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders, who ramped up operations in 2019.

Not all of Mr. Buttigieg’s staff in Iowa and New Hampshire are keeping their jobs. The campaign said it was following the terms of the union contract.

“When positions in Iowa ended after the caucuses, we’ve been offering new positions as they become available as directed by the collective bargaining agreement,” said Chris Meagher, Mr. Buttigieg’s spokesman. “We’re glad to have already offered the vast majority of them new positions on our team.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pete Buttigieg’s Dash for Cash: 10 Fund-Raisers in Two Weeks

In the compressed and crucial weeks between the New Hampshire primary and Super Tuesday, Pete Buttigieg is moving aggressively to replenish his campaign coffers with an ambitious schedule of 10 fund-raisers held across six states in a 14-day period.

The money chase for Mr. Buttigieg began in Indianapolis on Thursday at the 16,000-square foot home of a supporter as donors noshed on egg salad and cucumber sandwiches — “What a thrill to be back home again in Indiana,” Mr. Buttigieg said — and continued on Friday in California, as he traveled from San Francisco to Silicon Valley to the state capital of Sacramento for a photo line with contributors.

He will soon visit Seattle, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, the Washington D.C. area, Miami and Palm Beach — with most of the events built around states that will vote in early March.

Pete Buttigieg’s Fund-Raisers

Westlake Legal Group 0215-nat-web-PETEmap-600 Pete Buttigieg’s Dash for Cash: 10 Fund-Raisers in Two Weeks United States Politics and Government Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Democratic Party Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Buttigieg, Chasten Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr Beyer, Donald S Jr

Seattle

Feb. 15

San Francisco

Feb. 14

Salt Lake City

Feb. 17

Washington

Feb. 23

Washington

Indianapolis

Feb. 13

Palo Alto

Feb. 14

Charlottesville

Los Angeles

Feb. 20

Palm Beach

Feb. 26

Wellington

Feb. 26

Miami

Feb. 26

Attended by Mr. Buttigieg

Attended by his husband or staff

Westlake Legal Group 0215-nat-web-PETEmap-335 Pete Buttigieg’s Dash for Cash: 10 Fund-Raisers in Two Weeks United States Politics and Government Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Democratic Party Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Buttigieg, Chasten Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr Beyer, Donald S Jr

Seattle

Feb. 15

San Francisco

Feb. 14

Washington

Feb. 23

Salt Lake City

Feb. 17

Indianapolis

Feb. 13

Los Angeles

Feb. 20

Palm

Beach

Wellington

Feb. 26

Attended by Mr. Buttigieg

Attended by his husband or staff

By The New York Times

In addition to Mr. Buttigieg himself, his national policy director, Sonal Shah, a veteran of the Obama administration and Goldman Sachs, is hitting the road to headline events in Virginia, Maryland and Ohio, where donors are asked for up to $2,800 to become a “champion” and join in a “policy conversation” (some tickets can be had for as little as $54). And Mr. Buttigieg’s husband, Chasten, is featured at another five events, with two stops in Wisconsin, two in Denver and one in Phoenix.

The frenetic fund-raising pace opens up Mr. Buttigieg to potential criticism from progressives that he is the preferred candidate of the wealthy. That is a line of attack that both Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (“I don’t have 40 billionaires, Pete”) and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (“The mayor just recently had a fund-raiser that was held in a wine cave full of crystals”) have relished in recent months.

A virtually unknown small-town mayor a year ago, Mr. Buttigieg built a sizable list of small online donors and a formidable big bundler operation in 2019.

The need for money is acute as the candidates enter one of the most intense phases of the primary with consequential contests on each of the next two Saturdays, in Nevada and South Carolina. The latter state will be followed almost immediately by 15 states and territories on the next Tuesday, including the big prizes of California and Texas, where the cost of advertising can be prohibitive.

With the most delegates after the first two contests, Mr. Buttigieg, who ended two terms as mayor of South Bend, Ind., last month, now faces one rival in Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York City mayor, who has almost limitless money, and another in Mr. Sanders whose army of small contributors have been giving in accelerating amounts. Tom Steyer, a hedge fund billionaire from California, has been spending heavily, and rising in the polls, in Nevada and South Carolina.

Mr. Buttigieg had entered 2020 with $14.5 million in the bank. But his pace of spending since then burned through much of that sum and some of his money is earmarked for the general election and cannot be spent in the primary.

His monthly payroll had climbed to $2.7 million by December, federal filings showed. He spent $2.5 million on Facebook and Google ads since Jan. 1, company records show. And Mr. Buttigieg invested $6.5 million in television ads from Jan 1. through the New Hampshire primary this past Tuesday, according to Advertising Analytics, a media tracking firm. Plus, there are the other costs to run for president that are only growing — chartered planes, renting event space, polling, consulting fees and more. His campaign reported a single $761,039 credit card payment in December, for instance.

In the final quarter, Mr. Buttigieg raised $24.7 million, though he spent far more than that during the three-month period, about $34 million. Other candidates, including Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren, similarly spent more than they raised as the primaries neared.

His advisers have previously told donors that they were investing almost everything in Iowa, where he earned the most state delegate equivalents, and New Hampshire, where he finished a strong second, in hopes that command performances in those two states would open up political and financial opportunities beyond.

“All the chips were on the table for Iowa,” said David Jacobson, a Buttigieg fund-raiser and former ambassador.

“It was money well spent,” said Robert Mandell, another former ambassador and Buttigieg fund-raiser.

But the impact of Mr. Buttigieg’s apparent win in Iowa was dampened by the delayed and muddled results that are still subject to a recanvass. His campaign announced he had raised $4 million in the four days afterward. That is a significant sum but still less than what rival strategists said might have otherwise been expected for winning the opening contest.

Mr. Sanders was raising money at a clip of well above $1 million per day online in early February, according to an estimate based on figures released by his campaign. And that was before he won the New Hampshire primary. Ms. Warren’s campaign told supporters this week she had raised $5 million in the nine days following the Iowa caucuses. Neither senator is accepting contributions from elite donors.

One of Mr. Buttigieg’s events will be on Feb. 23 at the home of Representative Don Beyer, a Virginia Democrat and the first member of Congress to endorse him, with five other congressional co-hosts. Three days later, he will hold three fund-raisers across Florida — which does not hold its primary until March 17 — including one in Palm Beach whose hosts include Cynthia Friedman, a longtime Democratic contributor.

The campaign had sent invitations to even more events, including in Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., on Feb. 27 — the $500 level ticket is listed as sold out online for the Atlanta gathering — but Buttigieg aides said those events have been canceled.

Mr. Buttigieg is not alone on the fund-raising circuit. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. organized a conference call with his national finance committee after his fifth place New Hampshire finish to reassure skittish donors. He has upcoming fund-raisers in Colorado, Nevada and South Carolina, the latter two in states that vote later this month.

On Thursday, Mr. Biden held two events in New York that drew a notable group of Wall Street contributors. Organizers said the events raised almost $800,000, a large haul for a candidate who had sagged to fourth and fifth place in the first two contests. Mr. Biden also said on “The View” this week that he was raising about $400,000 per day in online donations.

That same evening, Michael Halle, a top strategist for Mr. Buttigieg, was in Washington meeting with donors, with contribution levels up to $1,000 (other Buttigieg advisers, including Lis Smith and Michael Schmuhl have previously headlined fund-raisers).

Both Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg have been assisted by super PACs, which are legally barred from coordinating strategy with the campaigns. Mr. Halle drew some criticism for a post on Twitter two days after the Iowa caucuses all-but-directing where such support could best be used.

The Buttigieg campaign announced expanding its Super Tuesday operations on Thursday, saying it would have “boots on the ground” in each of the states as of next Monday. That is far later than Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders, who ramped up operations in 2019.

Not all of Mr. Buttigieg’s staff in Iowa and New Hampshire are keeping their jobs. The campaign said it was following the terms of the union contract.

“When positions in Iowa ended after the caucuses, we’ve been offering new positions as they become available as directed by the collective bargaining agreement,” said Chris Meagher, Mr. Buttigieg’s spokesman. “We’re glad to have already offered the vast majority of them new positions on our team.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pete Buttigieg’s Dash for Cash: 10 Fund-Raisers in Two Weeks

In the compressed and crucial weeks between the New Hampshire primary and Super Tuesday, Pete Buttigieg is moving aggressively to replenish his campaign coffers with an ambitious schedule of 10 fund-raisers held across six states in a 14-day period.

The money chase for Mr. Buttigieg began in Indianapolis on Thursday at the 16,000-square foot home of a supporter as donors noshed on egg salad and cucumber sandwiches — “What a thrill to be back home again in Indiana,” Mr. Buttigieg said — and continued on Friday in California, as he traveled from San Francisco to Silicon Valley to the state capital of Sacramento for a photo line with contributors.

He will soon visit Seattle, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, the Washington D.C. area, Miami and Palm Beach — with most of the events built around states that will vote in early March.

Pete Buttigieg’s Fund-Raisers

Westlake Legal Group 0215-nat-web-PETEmap-600 Pete Buttigieg’s Dash for Cash: 10 Fund-Raisers in Two Weeks United States Politics and Government Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Democratic Party Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Buttigieg, Chasten Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr Beyer, Donald S Jr

Seattle

Feb. 15

San Francisco

Feb. 14

Salt Lake City

Feb. 17

Washington

Feb. 23

Washington

Indianapolis

Feb. 13

Palo Alto

Feb. 14

Charlottesville

Los Angeles

Feb. 20

Palm Beach

Feb. 26

Wellington

Feb. 26

Miami

Feb. 26

Attended by Mr. Buttigieg

Attended by his husband or staff

Westlake Legal Group 0215-nat-web-PETEmap-335 Pete Buttigieg’s Dash for Cash: 10 Fund-Raisers in Two Weeks United States Politics and Government Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Democratic Party Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Buttigieg, Chasten Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr Beyer, Donald S Jr

Seattle

Feb. 15

San Francisco

Feb. 14

Washington

Feb. 23

Salt Lake City

Feb. 17

Indianapolis

Feb. 13

Los Angeles

Feb. 20

Palm

Beach

Wellington

Feb. 26

Attended by Mr. Buttigieg

Attended by his husband or staff

By The New York Times

In addition to Mr. Buttigieg himself, his national policy director, Sonal Shah, a veteran of the Obama administration and Goldman Sachs, is hitting the road to headline events in Virginia, Maryland and Ohio, where donors are asked for up to $2,800 to become a “champion” and join in a “policy conversation” (some tickets can be had for as little as $54). And Mr. Buttigieg’s husband, Chasten, is featured at another five events, with two stops in Wisconsin, two in Denver and one in Phoenix.

The frenetic fund-raising pace opens up Mr. Buttigieg to potential criticism from progressives that he is the preferred candidate of the wealthy. That is a line of attack that both Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (“I don’t have 40 billionaires, Pete”) and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (“The mayor just recently had a fund-raiser that was held in a wine cave full of crystals”) have relished in recent months.

A virtually unknown small-town mayor a year ago, Mr. Buttigieg built a sizable list of small online donors and a formidable big bundler operation in 2019.

The need for money is acute as the candidates enter one of the most intense phases of the primary with consequential contests on each of the next two Saturdays, in Nevada and South Carolina. The latter state will be followed almost immediately by 15 states and territories on the next Tuesday, including the big prizes of California and Texas, where the cost of advertising can be prohibitive.

With the most delegates after the first two contests, Mr. Buttigieg, who ended two terms as mayor of South Bend, Ind., last month, now faces one rival in Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York City mayor, who has almost limitless money, and another in Mr. Sanders whose army of small contributors have been giving in accelerating amounts. Tom Steyer, a hedge fund billionaire from California, has been spending heavily, and rising in the polls, in Nevada and South Carolina.

Mr. Buttigieg had entered 2020 with $14.5 million in the bank. But his pace of spending since then burned through much of that sum and some of his money is earmarked for the general election and cannot be spent in the primary.

His monthly payroll had climbed to $2.7 million by December, federal filings showed. He spent $2.5 million on Facebook and Google ads since Jan. 1, company records show. And Mr. Buttigieg invested $6.5 million in television ads from Jan 1. through the New Hampshire primary this past Tuesday, according to Advertising Analytics, a media tracking firm. Plus, there are the other costs to run for president that are only growing — chartered planes, renting event space, polling, consulting fees and more. His campaign reported a single $761,039 credit card payment in December, for instance.

In the final quarter, Mr. Buttigieg raised $24.7 million, though he spent far more than that during the three-month period, about $34 million. Other candidates, including Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren, similarly spent more than they raised as the primaries neared.

His advisers have previously told donors that they were investing almost everything in Iowa, where he earned the most state delegate equivalents, and New Hampshire, where he finished a strong second, in hopes that command performances in those two states would open up political and financial opportunities beyond.

“All the chips were on the table for Iowa,” said David Jacobson, a Buttigieg fund-raiser and former ambassador.

“It was money well spent,” said Robert Mandell, another former ambassador and Buttigieg fund-raiser.

But the impact of Mr. Buttigieg’s apparent win in Iowa was dampened by the delayed and muddled results that are still subject to a recanvass. His campaign announced he had raised $4 million in the four days afterward. That is a significant sum but still less than what rival strategists said might have otherwise been expected for winning the opening contest.

Mr. Sanders was raising money at a clip of well above $1 million per day online in early February, according to an estimate based on figures released by his campaign. And that was before he won the New Hampshire primary. Ms. Warren’s campaign told supporters this week she had raised $5 million in the nine days following the Iowa caucuses. Neither senator is accepting contributions from elite donors.

One of Mr. Buttigieg’s events will be on Feb. 23 at the home of Representative Don Beyer, a Virginia Democrat and the first member of Congress to endorse him, with five other congressional co-hosts. Three days later, he will hold three fund-raisers across Florida — which does not hold its primary until March 17 — including one in Palm Beach whose hosts include Cynthia Friedman, a longtime Democratic contributor.

The campaign had sent invitations to even more events, including in Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., on Feb. 27 — the $500 level ticket is listed as sold out online for the Atlanta gathering — but Buttigieg aides said those events have been canceled.

Mr. Buttigieg is not alone on the fund-raising circuit. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. organized a conference call with his national finance committee after his fifth place New Hampshire finish to reassure skittish donors. He has upcoming fund-raisers in Colorado, Nevada and South Carolina, the latter two in states that vote later this month.

On Thursday, Mr. Biden held two events in New York that drew a notable group of Wall Street contributors. Organizers said the events raised almost $800,000, a large haul for a candidate who had sagged to fourth and fifth place in the first two contests. Mr. Biden also said on “The View” this week that he was raising about $400,000 per day in online donations.

That same evening, Michael Halle, a top strategist for Mr. Buttigieg, was in Washington meeting with donors, with contribution levels up to $1,000 (other Buttigieg advisers, including Lis Smith and Michael Schmuhl have previously headlined fund-raisers).

Both Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg have been assisted by super PACs, which are legally barred from coordinating strategy with the campaigns. Mr. Halle drew some criticism for a post on Twitter two days after the Iowa caucuses all-but-directing where such support could best be used.

The Buttigieg campaign announced expanding its Super Tuesday operations on Thursday, saying it would have “boots on the ground” in each of the states as of next Monday. That is far later than Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders, who ramped up operations in 2019.

Not all of Mr. Buttigieg’s staff in Iowa and New Hampshire are keeping their jobs. The campaign said it was following the terms of the union contract.

“When positions in Iowa ended after the caucuses, we’ve been offering new positions as they become available as directed by the collective bargaining agreement,” said Chris Meagher, Mr. Buttigieg’s spokesman. “We’re glad to have already offered the vast majority of them new positions on our team.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Recording Shows That the Swamp Has Not Been Drained

WASHINGTON — It became such a central slogan of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign that at rallies his supporters would chant the three words representing his pledge to take on big donors and special interests: “Drain the swamp.”

But as President Trump ramps up his 2020 re-election bid, it is clear that he has tolerated if not fostered a swamp of his own in Washington, granting up-close access to deep-pocketed supporters and interest groups willing to write six- and seven-figure checks to his political operation. Some have used the opportunity to plead their cases directly to him.

The latest evidence came over the weekend, with the release of a secret recording of an April 2018 dinner for major donors and prospective donors to a super PAC supporting Mr. Trump.

While news of the recording primarily focused on Mr. Trump’s call for the removal of Marie L. Yovanovitch as ambassador to Ukraine after a donor claimed she had disparaged the president, the recording revealed that Mr. Trump engaged in policy discussions with many other donors pushing their own agendas.

There was the New York real estate developer whose company’s project in South Korea was proposed to Mr. Trump as a possible site for his summit with Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea.

There was the Canadian steel magnate who pushed the president to further limit steel imports to the United States, and whose companies donated $1.75 million to the super PAC.

Other attendees discussed government policies that could benefit their businesses, including building a highway for self-driving trucks and regulations that would help make trucks powered by gas compressors to be more competitive with electric-powered vehicles.

The recording is a glimpse into a broader pattern in which the administration appointed industry lobbyists to key policymaking jobs, heeded the deregulatory wishes of big corporations and granted regular access to donors and influential political supporters. Some of the policies sought by the donors at the 2018 dinner have been subsequently introduced in Congress; it is unclear in those cases whether the president or the White House intervened.

Video

Westlake Legal Group trump-dinner-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600 Recording Shows That the Swamp Has Not Been Drained Zekelman, Barry United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Regulation and Deregulation of Industry Presidential Election of 2020 Presidential Election of 2016 Political Action Committees Gale, Stanley C Campaign Finance America First Action

At a 2018 dinner with donors, President Trump discussed a variety of topics, including golf, trade and politics.CreditCredit…Igor Fruman/Joseph A. Bondy

In other cases, Mr. Trump has directly championed the businesses of some of his biggest donors, as he did in the weeks after his inauguration when he reportedly discussed with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan an effort by the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson to build a casino there.

Mr. Trump’s assiduous courtship of major donors closely mirrors behavior for which he chastised his opponents in 2016, when he cast himself as a billionaire whose ability to finance his own campaign would ensure that he was not beholden to financial backers.

In the months after starting his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump branded his Republican rivals, as well as his eventual Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton, as “puppets” of major donors who funded their campaigns and supportive super PACs.

In one characteristic broadside at his rivals in late 2015, he assailed Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, and Senator Marco Rubio, also of Florida, both of whom were seeking the Republican nomination at the time, for their embrace of super PACs funded by major donors.

“And you look at Hillary — let’s go to the other side — they have super PACs, where they control the candidate just like you control a puppet,” Mr. Trump said. “We don’t want anybody to form super PACs for me. We sent legal notices: ‘Please give all the money back.’ We don’t want it.”

It was not long before Mr. Trump reversed himself.

His campaign began aggressively courting donations to supplement the personal money he was spending on his 2016 bid, and his team eventually blessed the formation of a super PAC that solicited large checks from major donors to air ads attacking Mrs. Clinton.

Once elected, Mr. Trump’s team signaled that he did not intend to spend his own money on his re-election. His allies formed a pair of political groups using variations of the name America First that could accept unlimited donations. He began appearing at events for donors, the most generous of whom were invited to the White House for briefings with top administration officials.

He has attended many donor gatherings and fund-raisers have been held at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, including the dinner that was the subject of the recording released over the weekend. Held in a private suite on April 30, 2018, it was for donors and prospective donors to America First Action, a super PAC that has raised nearly $50 million to support Mr. Trump and allied candidates.

The recording, which includes video at times, shows Mr. Trump entering the suite and posing for some photographs before joining donors in a dining room with 16 plush chairs around an ornately set table accented with floral arrangements.

Mr. Trump updated the donors on some of the most pressing issues facing his administration, including its ongoing negotiations with China over trade and North Korea over nuclear weapons. He seemed to encourage the donors to share their concerns.

Mr. Trump mentioned to the donors that his administration had selected a date and a location for his first meeting with Mr. Kim, which would be held in Singapore in the weeks after the dinner. One of the dinner attendees suggested a different site for the summit: a so-called smart development outside Seoul, South Korea, called Songdo, featuring a convention center, apartments and a golf course designed by the golfer Jack Nicklaus.

A leading stakeholder in the development was a company run by Stanley C. Gale, a donor to Republican campaigns and committees who attended the dinner, according to people familiar with the event. It was also attended by the golfer’s grandson and namesake, Jack Nicklaus III, who works for Mr. Gale’s company, according to a LinkedIn profile. Mr. Gale did not respond to a request for comment.

During the discussion, Mr. Trump told the guests, “You know that Kim Jong-un is a great golfer.” His remark prompted laughter and led another guest to suggest that Mr. Kim’s scores were recorded as all holes-in-one in his authoritarian country.

Another guest was Barry Zekelman, a Canadian citizen who owned a United States-based steel-tube manufacturing company that donated $1.75 million to America First Action, avoiding running afoul of a ban on foreign donations in American politics. He used the dinner to push the president on two challenges facing his company: cheap steel tube imports from Asia and new federal rules that made it harder to find truck drivers.

He urged Mr. Trump to go further in his effort to limit steel imports to the United States and questioned the rules intended to prevent fatal truck accidents by using electronic monitoring systems to limit the hours drivers could be on the road.

“Say someone is half an hour from home on their long-haul truck — they literally have to pull over on the side of the road and stop,” Mr. Zekelman said. “They can’t go home.”

Mr. Trump did not seem to be aware of the new federal rules that required those monitoring systems.

“They have a method that you shut down a truck?” Mr. Trump said, after Mr. Zekelman questioned the effect the new rules had on his ability to move the steel pipe he manufactured. “Wow.”

Since that dinner, legislation has been introduced in the House with the cosponsorship of 12 Republicans, including the brother of Vice President Mike Pence, to allow smaller trucking companies to get exemptions from the rule.

Legislation has also been introduced to help natural gas vehicles compete with electric ones. It was applauded by an Ohio company that makes gas compressors, Ariel Corporation. One of its executives, Thomas Rastin, was on the invitation list for the April dinner. He and a woman resembling his wife, Karen Buchwald Wright, who owns Ariel Corporation, are briefly visible in the video of the event. Together, the couple have donated a combined $875,000 to America First Action. He did not respond to questions about whether he was the voice on the recording urging the president to take steps to help the industry.

Another invitee was Wayne Hoovestol, who owns trucking companies in the Midwest, including one that works with the United States Postal Service. On the recording, a male voice says he runs a company that does business with the Postal Service and urges Mr. Trump to consider supporting the construction of a 500-mile section of highway to be used exclusively by self-driving trucks.

Paying truck drivers, the voice said, was one of his company’s biggest costs.

“All the technology is there, right now,” he said. “It is absolutely safe.”

A limited liability company that shared an address and personnel with one of Mr. Hoovestol’s companies donated $250,000 to America First Action on the day of the dinner.

Mr. Hoovestol did not respond to a request for comment.

The recording was made by a dinner attendee, Igor Fruman, and was released by the lawyer for another, Lev Parnas, an associate of Mr. Fruman.

The two, both Soviet-born American businessmen, would go on to play central roles in the pressure campaign against Ukraine that led to Mr. Trump’s impeachment.

During the dinner, Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman discussed with Mr. Trump a natural gas venture they were pursuing in Ukraine. Mr. Parnas also asked the president to consider changing banking regulations to aid another business venture they would soon pursue: a plan to win marijuana retail licenses in Nevada and elsewhere.

The month after the dinner, they donated $325,000 to America First Action through Global Energy Producers, a company they had recently formed to pursue energy deals.

The men have since been indicted on campaign finance charges related to their business ventures and have pleaded not guilty.

Ben Protess contributed reporting from New York.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Impeachment Trial Puts Susan Collins, Stung by Kavanaugh Backlash, Under Scrutiny

Westlake Legal Group 18dc-collins2-facebookJumbo Impeachment Trial Puts Susan Collins, Stung by Kavanaugh Backlash, Under Scrutiny United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Republican Party Maine Collins, Susan M Campaign Finance

WASHINGTON — A few days after Senator Susan Collins cast her votes to acquit President Bill Clinton, as she was greeted with icy stares at a Lincoln Day dinner in rural Maine, a fellow Republican approached her, irate.

“I can’t believe you let him off the hook,” he told Ms. Collins. “I am never, ever voting for you again.”

Twenty-one years later, she faces another presidential impeachment vote with heavy consequences for the nation and her own political survival. Ms. Collins, one of a handful of moderate Republicans whose votes could alter the trajectory of the trial, said she does not regret her votes to acquit then.

She said she would use the same logic behind that decision when she weighs the impeachment charges against President Trump in a Senate trial that begins in earnest next week.

“I, too, was furious at President Clinton and felt that he had lied under oath, but it didn’t reach the constitutional test of high crimes and misdemeanors, and was not sufficient to overturn an election and throw him out of office,” she said in an interview on Thursday in her Capitol Hill office.

In the case of Mr. Trump, she said, she would be “applying that same standard.”

Ms. Collins’s position as a centrist gives her outsize influence over the shape of Mr. Trump’s trial, including whether new witnesses and evidence will be heard, just as it has in some of the most important and impassioned debates during her four terms in the Senate. But that middle ground is shrinking in the Trump era, leaving her open to bitter attack from both political parties.

She was among three Republicans who sank Mr. Trump’s attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and she helped lead an unsuccessful effort to prevent him from taking unallocated money for his border wall. But she also voted for a tax bill that was the centerpiece of the Republican agenda. And the move that overshadowed all that was her deciding vote to confirm Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who was accused of sexual assault.

Ms. Collins’s health care vote in 2017 fueled hopes on the left and anger on the right over whether she might stray from party orthodoxy. But the Kavanaugh vote and the tax vote reinforced her lifelong party affiliation despite her aversion to parts of Mr. Trump’s agenda.

That confirmation vote — and her impassioned speech defending it on the Senate floor — generated millions of dollars in donations to be used against her, and a lengthy period of harassment and intimidation by critics, including numerous death threats. There were so many hostile calls targeting her that a 25-year-old employee in one of her Maine offices quit. One day, her husband texted Ms. Collins a photo of himself in a hazmat suit; someone had sent a threatening letter to their Maine home — where protesters gathered eight Sundays in a row — that claimed to contain ricin.

In Washington, a man waited for Ms. Collins in the dark as she parked her car one evening in the pouring rain, then followed her several blocks to her townhouse. A neighbor lamented to her that he hated living next to “a rape apologist.”

“It just made the whole time very unpleasant,” said Ms. Collins, who faces a steep re-election challenge in November, when she will seek a fifth term. “But anyone who thinks that they can intimidate me doesn’t know me.”

Ms. Collins’s history, and her competitive race to keep her seat, puts her at the top of the list of senators under scrutiny in the impeachment debate. Reporters on Capitol Hill toil to divine her intentions; as the articles of impeachment were read Thursday on the Senate floor, Ms. Collins, who was suffering a bad cold, coughed and dabbed at her eyes, causing several reporters to call her office to ask why she was crying.

Her vote at the conclusion of Mr. Trump’s trial almost certainly will not determine whether he becomes the first president to be removed from office by the Senate — the 67 votes required, at this point, are not there. But Ms. Collins will be pivotal to resolving procedural questions, including a battle between Republicans and Democrats over calling witnesses and admitting new documents as part of the Senate trial. And Ms. Collins has signaled that she will buck her party and support both moves.

“I would anticipate that it is likely that I would vote to have more information brought forward, whether witnesses or documents or both,” she said Thursday.

Ms. Collins convened several meetings in her office with the Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee to cobble together a provision ensuring a vote on the matter after opening arguments by both sides and questions from senators. If the four hang together on the issue, their votes would be enough — along with the 47 that Democrats control — to demand more information come out in the trial.

And her eventual vote on whether to remove the president will be politically significant as well, both to Mr. Trump and to Ms. Collins. Since he was impeached last month, the president has leaned on his party’s unified opposition to dismiss the whole effort as a partisan “hoax,” and he has made it clear he looks forward to an exoneration by the Republican-led chamber. Even a single Republican vote in favor of removing him would undermine that.

In Maine, Ms. Collins’s choice could prove even more consequential to voters, and perhaps play a critical role in her legacy.

“There is no doubt that there are going to be Mainers unhappy with me no matter what conclusion I reach,” said Ms. Collins, who said she has been powering through an enormous white binder detailing the trial’s substance.

The Kavanaugh confirmation, among the most bitter Senate fights of the Trump administration, may have shored up support among a Republican base smarting from some of Ms. Collins’s other votes, but it enraged many of the independent and Democratic voters who have helped keep Ms. Collins comfortably in office for years. It also set the stage and tone for the impeachment fight.

What appears to rankle Ms. Collins is the suggestion that her votes are mere political calculations. She often says she consults a bevy of experts, reams of transcripts and scores of interviews with people who have a personal stake in a policy outcome.

To prepare for Mr. Trump’s trial, she met with specialists from the legal division at the Congressional Research Service and had her staff put together a huge notebook about the 1999 trial procedures. She has read myriad transcripts of the House hearings and reports on the Ukraine matter and Mr. Trump, she said.

“I felt that the process that we followed in 1999 worked really well and produced a fair outcome,” she said, including the decision to call witnesses and examine additional evidence, which most Republicans are resisting this time around.

In voting for witnesses but rejecting one or both charges against Mr. Trump, Ms. Collins might anticipate she can satisfy both Maine Republicans, many of whom are very loyal to the president, and the many Democrats and independents she has always relied on for her victories.

But that is far from clear in such a hyperpartisan environment. And she will be running for re-election against several opponents in November, including Sara Gideon, the Democratic speaker of Maine’s House.

“I am definitely expecting this to be an all-out brawl from both left and right groups, along with the candidate and party spending,” said Michael M. Franz, a co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political advertising spending.

Maine’s race already surpassed all other Senate races in terms of campaign spending for 2019, Mr. Franz said. “All told, I don’t expect either side to be dramatically outspent, since pro-Democrat groups see this election as one of their likeliest prospects,” he said.

Compromise legislation of the sort that used to help lawmakers in Maine, where voters love independence, is increasingly rare in Congress these days. (A notable exception is the recent North American trade agreement.)

Polls show approval ratings for Ms. Collins, long one of the nation’s most popular senators, dipping.

“Maine has a kind of model of what they want a political figure to look like, which has elements of being respected nationally, civility and a certain degree of bipartisanship and independence,” said Amy Fried, the chairwoman of the department of political science at the University of Maine. “However in today’s politics she has been pushed out of that.”

For example, Ms. Fried said, although Ms. Collins is seen as supportive of abortion rights and pro-environment, political advocacy groups that press for those issues are not likely to support her this year.

“Senator Collins is now the most unpopular Senator in the country because she’s shown over and over again that she will put the needs of corporate special interests and Mitch McConnell ahead of Mainers,” said Kathleen Marra, the chairwoman of the Maine Democratic Party, who says there has been a tremendous surge in enthusiasm and volunteer engagement in her state.

Yet incumbency can be a powerful force. Ms. Collins is known as a shrewd politician who has built ties to every part of the state and labors to scrape together benefits for its shipyards, lobstermen and large elderly population and to promote them when at home.

Impeachment could be a wild card.

“I feel confident she is beatable, but don’t feel confident she will definitely lose yet,” said Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, one of the many groups spending millions of dollars to highlight Ms. Collins’s Kavanaugh vote. “It is still going to take a lot of work.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Cash-Rich Democrats Brace for Long Fight as Trump Hoards Money

Westlake Legal Group 02campfin-sanders-facebookJumbo Cash-Rich Democrats Brace for Long Fight as Trump Hoards Money Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Sanders, Bernard Republican National Committee Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Democratic Party Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr

A flood of money rushed into the presidential race in the last three months of 2019, producing an unusually large number of Democratic candidates with the resources to battle deep into the 2020 primary calendar, all vying for the right to face an incumbent president boasting his own enormous war chest.

The five strongest Democratic fund-raisers are expected to report over $115 million raised in just the final quarter of the year, and they join two self-funding billionaires who are pouring their fortunes into expansive advertising campaigns.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is pacing the Democratic field, announcing on Thursday that he had raised $34.5 million in the last three months — the largest sum of any Democrat in any quarter so far. Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., collected $24.7 million, and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. raised $22.7 million, his best showing of the year. Senator Elizabeth Warren said early Friday she had raised $21.2 million, a slight decrease from the previous quarter.

In a sign of how widespread the money windfall was, Andrew Yang, the former entrepreneur who was unknown nationally a year ago, raised a striking total of $16.5 million in the fourth quarter — more than Mr. Biden had managed in the third.

Whoever emerges from the fractious Democratic primary will face a financial powerhouse in President Trump, who leveraged the impeachment fight of recent months to shatter his previous fund-raising records, collecting $46 million in the fourth quarter, his campaign said Thursday. He enters 2020 with $102.7 million in cash on hand.

While Mr. Trump is stockpiling cash for the general election, Democrats are expected to spend tens of millions of dollars in the coming months taking aim at one another in an intensifying primary fight. And with an uncommonly high number of well-funded candidates in a surprisingly fluid race, party leaders are bracing for an extended nomination battle, especially if the first four states to vote in February deliver a split verdict.

“Put your seatbelts on, because I do expect we’re in for a protracted race to the finish line,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, a member of the House Democratic leadership.

The fact that so many candidates can simultaneously raise so much money is a testament to the rising power of small, online donors in presidential politics. Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren combined to raise more than $160 million in 2019 while refusing to hold any traditional fund-raisers with large contributors. And Mr. Biden credited his recent fund-raising uptick to increased online support, which doubled from the previous quarter.

Ami Copeland, who was deputy national finance director for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, said that the fourth-quarter numbers “really just lock in that top tier, period,” and that the candidates’ substantial financial resources would “create some legs to this primary process.”

“This is going to go on for a while,” Mr. Copeland added.

Awaiting the top Democratic contenders in March is the billionaire former mayor of New York City, Michael R. Bloomberg. Though he is skipping the first four states, Mr. Bloomberg has already spent nearly $140 million of his fortune on television ads, according to the ad-tracking firm Advertising Analytics, mostly in the Super Tuesday states that will vote in early March and other states that will follow.

The scope of Mr. Bloomberg’s spending is staggering: He has reserved more in TV ads, $37 million, in the first days of January than the fund-raising leader, Mr. Sanders, had collected in the final three months from more than 1.8 million contributions.

The high number of candidates with significant resources — the billionaire Tom Steyer is filling the airwaves in the four early states with ads, as well — has stirred early worries that the party could go all the way to its July convention without a nominee, which would drastically truncate the window to focus on combating Mr. Trump.

“To have the best chance of beating Trump and moving on to the general, candidates will need to drop out when they still have plenty of money but no delegate path,” said David Plouffe, who managed Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign and was a senior adviser in 2012. “It defies history they will do so, but it’s what will be required. This can’t be a cycle where just because you can keep going on, you do.”

Mr. Jeffries said it was crucial for the party to coalesce around whoever emerges, whenever it happens.

“We cannot afford the degree of recklessness and political immaturity among some who conclude that unless my candidate wins, I’m taking my ball and going home,” he warned, in an apparent reference to Mr. Sanders’s disgruntled supporters in 2016. “That is what delivered Donald Trump the first time.”

For the second consecutive quarter, Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, declared the incumbent to be building a financial “juggernaut” for the general election. His $102.7 million war chest will be supplemented by tens of millions of dollars more in the coffers of the Republican National Committee, which Mr. Trump functionally controls.

Together, Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee raised roughly $125 million in the third quarter, and a Trump campaign official said on Thursday that their combined total for the fourth quarter would be even larger.

But Democrats were heartened that, collectively, their campaigns far surpassed the total of Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign; the full field of 14 candidates will more than double the president’s take, signaling the intense desire in the party to win back the White House.

“What you’re seeing is a Democratic base so aware and so paying attention so early on,” said Karine Jean-Pierre, a Democratic strategist and a spokeswoman for MoveOn.org, a progressive activist group. “It’s just been part of the reaction to Trump. The last three years we’ve seen a very engaged Democratic base.”

The full picture of the financial race will not become clear until Jan. 31, when all the candidates must file their fund-raising reports with the Federal Election Commission. How much money the Democratic candidates actually have in the bank to spend in the closing stretch is an even more significant metric of their viability so close to votes being cast; notably, no Democrats have voluntarily disclosed that information.

Still, Mr. Sanders enters 2020 with a clear financial advantage over his primary rivals: His treasury allows him to buy additional television ads in the early states — he purchased new airtime in New Hampshire on Thursday — and to invest in staff in Super Tuesday states like California, where he had already dispatched 80 staff members as of December.

Mr. Sanders’s strongest month of the year was December, when he raised more than $18 million from more than 900,000 contributions, and he particularly benefited from a rush of donations in the final two days of the year. He can also keep raising cash online without spending days off the trail doing fund-raisers.

Mr. Biden had entered the fourth quarter with nearly $25 million less in cash on hand than Mr. Sanders. His campaign manager, Greg Schultz, wrote in a memo Thursday that the campaign would “always be playing from behind in the cash race” because Mr. Biden did not transfer funds to his presidential bid from other campaign accounts (as did two of his top rivals, Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Biden’s campaign said it had received a financial boost from Mr. Trump’s impeachment; the average amount of money it raised online per day, it said, more than doubled during the House’s impeachment inquiry compared with previous weeks. But despite his greater success online, Mr. Biden will continue to hold fund-raisers into January, with events in the coming days in New York City, Philadelphia and Washington.

Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign out-raised Mr. Biden’s for the third consecutive quarter, and it raised roughly $76 million in 2019, compared with about $60 million for Mr. Biden. What began as a bare-bones operation now counts more than 500 staff members nationwide, with 65 field offices in early voting states, according to a memo on Wednesday from Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign manager, Mike Schmuhl.

Among the top-tier candidates, only Ms. Warren has not yet released her fund-raising total. Her campaign emailed supporters in late December to say her pace was behind her third-quarter haul by millions of dollars and set a reduced goal of $20 million. On the trail in New Hampshire on Thursday, she brushed aside questions about her total, saying that unlike some rivals, she “didn’t spend one single minute selling access to my time to millionaires and billionaires.”

Mr. Yang, who rang in the New Year with a champagne toast in New Hampshire, was bullish on his $16.5 million haul, including more than $4 million in the last nine days of December from an online following known as the “Yang Gang.”

“We’re going to continue to surprise people,” Mr. Yang said in a high school gym in Concord, N.H., on Thursday, “and shock the world when the voting starts in February.”

Patrick Healy and Matt Stevens contributed reporting from Concord, N.H.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democrats Enter 2020 Awash in Cash, and Brace for Long Primary Fight

Westlake Legal Group 02campfin-sanders-facebookJumbo Democrats Enter 2020 Awash in Cash, and Brace for Long Primary Fight Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Trump, Donald J Sanders, Bernard Republican National Committee Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Parscale, Brad (1976- ) Online Advertising Jeffries, Hakeem Democratic Party Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr

A flood of money rushed into the presidential race in the last three months of 2019, producing an unusually large number of Democratic candidates with the resources to battle deep into the 2020 primary calendar, all vying for the right to face an incumbent president boasting his own enormous war chest.

The five strongest Democratic fund-raisers are expected to report over $115 million raised in just the final quarter of the year, and they join two self-funding billionaires who are pouring their fortunes into expansive advertising campaigns.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is pacing the Democratic field, announcing on Thursday that he had raised $34.5 million in the last three months — the largest sum of any Democrat in any quarter so far. Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., collected $24.7 million, and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. raised $22.7 million, his best showing of the year. Senator Elizabeth Warren has not revealed her haul but told supporters in late December that she had banked $17 million, while setting a $20 million goal.

In a sign of how widespread the money windfall was, Andrew Yang, the former entrepreneur who was unknown nationally a year ago, raised a striking total of $16.5 million in the fourth quarter — more than Mr. Biden had managed in the third.

Whoever emerges from the fractious Democratic primary will face a financial powerhouse in President Trump, who leveraged the impeachment fight of recent months to shatter his previous fund-raising records, collecting $46 million in the fourth quarter, his campaign said Thursday. He enters 2020 with $102.7 million in cash on hand.

While Mr. Trump is stockpiling cash for the general election, Democrats are expected to spend tens of millions of dollars in the coming months taking aim at one another in an intensifying primary fight. And with an uncommonly high number of well-funded candidates in a surprisingly fluid race, party leaders are bracing for an extended nomination battle, especially if the first four states to vote in February deliver a split verdict.

“Put your seatbelts on, because I do expect we’re in for a protracted race to the finish line,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, a member of the House Democratic leadership.

The fact that so many candidates can simultaneously raise so much money is a testament to the rising power of small, online donors in presidential politics. Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren combined to raise more than $160 million in 2019 while refusing to hold any traditional fund-raisers with large contributors. And Mr. Biden credited his recent fund-raising uptick to increased online support, which doubled from the previous quarter.

Ami Copeland, who was deputy national finance director for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, said that the fourth-quarter numbers “really just lock in that top tier, period” and that the candidates’ substantial financial resources would “create some legs to this primary process.”

“This is going to go on for a while,” Mr. Copeland added.

Awaiting the top Democratic contenders in March is the billionaire former mayor of New York City, Michael R. Bloomberg. Though he is skipping the first four states, Mr. Bloomberg has already spent nearly $140 million of his fortune on television ads, according to the ad-tracking firm Advertising Analytics, mostly in the Super Tuesday states that will vote in early March and other states that will follow.

The scope of Mr. Bloomberg’s spending is staggering: He has reserved more in TV ads, $37 million, in the first days of January than the fund-raising leader, Mr. Sanders, had collected in the final three months from more than 1.8 million contributions.

The high number of candidates with significant resources — the billionaire Tom Steyer is filling the airwaves in the four early states with ads, as well — has stirred early worries that the party could go all the way to its July convention without a nominee, which would drastically truncate the window to focus on combating Mr. Trump.

“To have the best chance of beating Trump and moving on to the general, candidates will need to drop out when they still have plenty of money but no delegate path,” said David Plouffe, who managed Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign and was a senior adviser in 2012. “It defies history they will do so, but it’s what will be required. This can’t be a cycle where just because you can keep going on, you do.”

Mr. Jeffries said it was crucial for the party to coalesce around whoever emerges, whenever it happens.

“We cannot afford the degree of recklessness and political immaturity among some who conclude that unless my candidate wins, I’m taking my ball and going home,” he warned, in an apparent reference to Mr. Sanders’s disgruntled supporters in 2016. “That is what delivered Donald Trump the first time.”

For the second consecutive quarter, Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, declared the incumbent to be building a financial “juggernaut” for the general election. His $102.7 million war chest will be supplemented by tens of millions of dollars more in the coffers of the Republican National Committee, which Mr. Trump functionally controls.

Together, Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee raised roughly $125 million in the third quarter, and a Trump campaign official said on Thursday that their combined total for the fourth quarter would be even larger.

But Democrats were heartened that, collectively, their campaigns far surpassed the total of Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign; the full field of 14 candidates will more than double the president’s take, signaling the intense desire in the party to win back the White House.

“What you’re seeing is a Democratic base so aware and so paying attention so early on,” said Karine Jean-Pierre, a Democratic strategist and a spokeswoman for MoveOn.org, a progressive activist group. “It’s just been part of the reaction to Trump. The last three years we’ve seen a very engaged Democratic base.”

The full picture of the financial race will not become clear until Jan. 31, when all the candidates must file their fund-raising reports with the Federal Election Commission. How much money the Democratic candidates actually have in the bank to spend in the closing stretch is an even more significant metric of their viability so close to votes being cast; notably, no Democrats have voluntarily disclosed that information.

Still, Mr. Sanders enters 2020 with a clear financial advantage over his primary rivals: His treasury allows him to buy additional television ads in the early states — he purchased new airtime in New Hampshire on Thursday — and to invest in staff in Super Tuesday states like California, where he had already dispatched 80 staff members as of December.

Mr. Sanders’s strongest month of the year was December, when he raised more than $18 million from more than 900,000 contributions, and he particularly benefited from a rush of donations in the final two days of the year. He can also keep raising cash online without spending days off the trail doing fund-raisers.

Mr. Biden had entered the fourth quarter with nearly $25 million less in cash on hand than Mr. Sanders. His campaign manager, Greg Schultz, wrote in a memo Thursday that the campaign would “always be playing from behind in the cash race” because Mr. Biden did not transfer funds to his presidential bid from other campaign accounts (as did two of his top rivals, Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Biden’s campaign said it had received a financial boost from Mr. Trump’s impeachment; the average amount of money it raised online per day, it said, more than doubled during the House’s impeachment inquiry compared with previous weeks. But despite his greater success online, Mr. Biden will continue to hold fund-raisers into January, with events in the coming days in New York City, Philadelphia and Washington.

Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign out-raised Mr. Biden for the third consecutive quarter, and it raised roughly $76 million in 2019, compared with about $60 million for Mr. Biden. What began as a bare-bones operation now counts more than 500 staff members nationwide, with 65 field offices in early voting states, according to a memo on Wednesday from Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign manager, Mike Schmuhl.

Among the top-tier candidates, only Ms. Warren has not yet released her fund-raising total. Her campaign emailed supporters in late December to say her pace was behind her third-quarter haul by millions of dollars and set a reduced goal of $20 million. On the trail in New Hampshire on Thursday, she brushed aside questions about her total, saying that unlike some rivals, she “didn’t spend one single minute selling access to my time to millionaires and billionaires.”

Mr. Yang, who rang in the New Year with a champagne toast in New Hampshire, was bullish on his $16.5 million haul, including more than $4 million in the last nine days of December from an online following known as the “Yang Gang.”

“We’re going to continue to surprise people,” Mr. Yang said in a high school gym in Concord, N.H., on Thursday, “and shock the world when the voting starts in February.”

Patrick Healy and Matt Stevens contributed reporting from Concord, N.H.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democrats Enter 2020 Awash in Cash, and Brace for Long Primary Fight

Westlake Legal Group 02campfin-sanders-facebookJumbo Democrats Enter 2020 Awash in Cash, and Brace for Long Primary Fight Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Trump, Donald J Sanders, Bernard Republican National Committee Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Parscale, Brad (1976- ) Online Advertising Jeffries, Hakeem Democratic Party Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr

A flood of money rushed into the presidential race in the last three months of 2019, producing an unusually large number of Democratic candidates with the resources to battle deep into the 2020 primary calendar, all vying for the right to face an incumbent president boasting his own enormous war chest.

The five strongest Democratic fund-raisers are expected to report well over $115 million raised in just the final quarter of the year, and they join two self-funding billionaires who are pouring their fortunes into expansive advertising campaigns.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is pacing the Democratic field, announcing on Thursday that he had raised $34.5 million in the last three months — the largest sum of any Democrat in any quarter this year. Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., collected $24.7 million, and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. raised $22.7 million, his best showing of the year. Senator Elizabeth Warren has not revealed her haul but told supporters in late December that she had banked $17 million, while setting a $20 million goal.

In a sign of how widespread the money windfall was, Andrew Yang, the former entrepreneur who was unknown nationally a year ago, raised a striking total of $16.5 million in the fourth quarter — more than Mr. Biden had managed in the third.

Whoever emerges from the fractious Democratic primary will face a financial powerhouse in President Trump, who leveraged the impeachment fight of recent months to shatter his previous fund-raising records, collecting $46 million in the fourth quarter, his campaign said Thursday. He enters 2020 with $102.7 million in cash on hand.

While Mr. Trump is stockpiling cash for the general election, Democrats are expected to spend tens of millions of dollars in the coming months taking aim at one another in an intensifying primary fight. And with an uncommonly high number of well-funded candidates, party leaders are bracing for an extended nomination battle, especially if the first four states to vote in February deliver a split verdict.

“Put your seatbelts on, because I do expect we’re in for a protracted race to the finish line,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, a member of the House Democratic leadership.

The fact that so many candidates can simultaneously raise so much money is a testament to the rising power of small, online donors in presidential politics. Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren combined to raise more than $160 million in 2019 while refusing to hold any traditional fund-raisers with large contributors. And Mr. Biden credited his fund-raising uptick to increased online support, which doubled over the previous three months.

Ami Copeland, who was deputy national finance director for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, said that the fourth-quarter numbers “really just lock in that top tier, period” and that the candidates’ substantial financial resources would “create some legs to this primary process.”

“This is going to go on for a while,” Mr. Copeland added.

Awaiting the top Democratic contenders in March is the billionaire former mayor of New York City, Michael R. Bloomberg. Though he is skipping the first four states, Mr. Bloomberg has already spent nearly $140 million of his fortune on television ads, according to the ad-tracking firm Advertising Analytics, mostly in the Super Tuesday states that will vote in early March and other states that will follow.

The scope of Mr. Bloomberg’s spending is staggering: He has reserved more in TV ads, $37 million, in the first days of January than the fund-raising leader, Mr. Sanders, had collected in the final three months from more than 1.8 million contributions.

The high number of candidates with significant resources — the billionaire Tom Steyer is filling the airwaves in the four early states with ads, as well — has stirred early worries that the party could go all the way to its July convention without a nominee, which would drastically truncate the window to focus on combating Mr. Trump.

“To have the best chance of beating Trump and moving on to the general, candidates will need to drop out when they still have plenty of money but no delegate path,” said David Plouffe, who managed Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign and was a senior adviser in 2012. “It defies history they will do so, but it’s what will be required. This can’t be a cycle where just because you can keep going on, you do.”

Mr. Jeffries said it was crucial for the party to coalesce around whoever emerges, whenever it happens.

“We cannot afford the degree of recklessness and political immaturity among some who conclude that unless my candidate wins, I’m taking my ball and going home,” he warned, in an apparent reference to Mr. Sanders’s disgruntled supporters in 2016. “That is what delivered Donald Trump the first time.”

For the second consecutive quarter, Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, declared the incumbent to be building a financial “juggernaut” for the general election. His $102.7 million war chest will be supplemented by tens of millions of dollars more in the coffers of the Republican National Committee, which Mr. Trump functionally controls.

Together, Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee raised roughly $125 million in the third quarter, and a Trump campaign official said on Thursday that their combined total for the fourth quarter would be even larger.

But Democrats were heartened that, collectively, their campaigns far surpassed the total of Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign; the full field of 14 candidates will more than double the president’s take, signaling the intense desire in the party to win back the White House.

“What you’re seeing is a Democratic base so aware and so paying attention so early on,” said Karine Jean-Pierre, a Democratic strategist and a spokeswoman for MoveOn.org, a progressive activist group. “It’s just been part of the reaction to Trump. The last three years we’ve seen a very engaged Democratic base.”

The full picture of the financial race will not become clear until Jan. 31, when all the candidates must file their fund-raising reports with the Federal Election Commission. How much money the Democratic candidates actually have in the bank to spend in the closing stretch is an even more significant metric of their viability so close to votes being cast; notably, no Democrats have voluntarily disclosed that information.

Still, Mr. Sanders enters 2020 with a clear financial advantage over his primary rivals: His treasury allows him to buy additional television ads in the early states — he purchased new airtime in New Hampshire on Thursday — and to invest in staff in Super Tuesday states like California, where he had already dispatched 80 staff members as of December.

Mr. Sanders’s strongest month of the year was December, when he raised more than $18 million from more than 900,000 contributions, and he particularly benefited from a rush of donations in the final two days of the year. He can also keep raising cash online without spending days off the trail doing fund-raisers.

Mr. Biden had entered the fourth quarter with nearly $25 million less in cash on hand than Mr. Sanders. His campaign manager, Greg Schultz, wrote in a memo Thursday that the campaign would “always be playing from behind in the cash race” because Mr. Biden did not transfer funds to his presidential bid from other campaign accounts (as did two of his top rivals, Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Biden’s campaign said it had received a financial boost from Mr. Trump’s impeachment; the average amount of money it raised online per day, it said, more than doubled during the House’s impeachment inquiry compared with previous weeks. But despite his greater success online, Mr. Biden will continue to hold fund-raisers into January, with events in the coming days in New York City, Philadelphia and Washington.

Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign out-raised Mr. Biden for the third consecutive quarter, and it raised roughly $76 million in 2019, compared with about $60 million for Mr. Biden. What began as a bare-bones operation now counts more than 500 staff members nationwide, with 65 field offices in early voting states, according to a memo on Wednesday from Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign manager, Mike Schmuhl.

Among the top-tier candidates, only Ms. Warren has not yet released her fund-raising total. Her campaign emailed supporters in late December to say her pace was behind her third-quarter haul by millions of dollars and set a reduced goal of $20 million. On the trail in New Hampshire on Thursday, she brushed aside questions about her total, saying that unlike some rivals, she “didn’t spend one single minute selling access to my time to millionaires and billionaires.”

Mr. Yang, who rang in the New Year with a champagne toast in New Hampshire, was bullish on his $16.5 million haul, including more than $4 million in the last nine days of December from an online following known as the “Yang Gang.”

“We’re going to continue to surprise people,” Mr. Yang said in a high school gym in Concord, N.H., on Thursday, “and shock the world when the voting starts in February.”

Patrick Healy and Matt Stevens contributed reporting from Concord, N.H.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Biden Rebounds, Warren Slows, Sanders Rolls: The Latest on the 2020 Money Race

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s slip in the 2020 primary polls has been accompanied by a dip in donations, with her campaign setting a rare public goal: aiming to raise $20 million for the fourth quarter of 2019 ending Tuesday, or about 20 percent less than what she raised in the previous three-month period.

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., meanwhile, has rebounded from a weak third quarter, in which he raised only $15.7 million and spent $2 million more than he took in. Now his campaign is trying to assert his front-runner status in the Democratic race, pushing in the final 48 hours of the year to post “our biggest fund-raising quarter yet,” as Mr. Biden wrote in an email on Sunday, by topping the $21.5 million he raised last spring.

The shifting financial fortunes of Ms. Warren and Mr. Biden illustrate the unsettled nature of the Democratic presidential contest heading into 2020, with four candidates — Mr. Biden, Ms. Warren of Massachusetts, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind. — battling for position in the top tier of polling and seeking to bolster their treasuries ahead of the final sprint to the Iowa caucuses and beyond.

Mr. Sanders is expected to remain a financial pacesetter in the 2020 contest. He has about 1.6 million individual donations this quarter alone and is nearing a goal of five million total contributions. With an average donation of $18 for the year, and slightly less than that now, the numbers suggest he has already raised about $26 million in the fourth quarter — more than any Democratic candidate has raised in any quarter this year.

No other 2020 candidate has announced reaching three million donations for the year.

Mr. Buttigieg is closing in on two million donations (he has more than 1.95 million, according to campaign emails). That means he has already received more than 700,000 contributions this quarter, his most in a three-month period. He recently said his average donation was around $30, suggesting a haul of more than $21 million. Mr. Buttigieg raised $19.1 million and $24.6 million in the previous two quarters.

The impending quarterly deadline on Tuesday is critical for the campaigns as they urge their supporters to help them finish the year on a strong note. It is also the last time before the nominating contests begin that they will be required to open the books on their finances, with full reports to be released on Jan. 31.

The money chase shows not only which candidates are most viable for a potentially long and contested primary battle but also who has a diverse and well-built financial foundation for a potential general election matchup against President Trump, who entered October with $158 million between his campaign and shared committees with the Republican Party.

Westlake Legal Group 2020-presidential-candidates-promo-1548014688187-articleLarge-v50 Biden Rebounds, Warren Slows, Sanders Rolls: The Latest on the 2020 Money Race Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 Klobuchar, Amy Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr

Who’s Running for President in 2020?

Who’s in, who’s out and who’s still thinking.

The estimated hauls are very much subject to change, since campaigns can bank millions in the final days of the quarter. And while the top-line figures for money raised are significant, the Democratic campaigns’ cash situation — how much they have in the bank for ads, organizers and field programs — is more crucial now that voting begins in less than 40 days.

Despite Mr. Biden’s turnaround on the fund-raising front — he raised more in just October and November than he had the previous three months — he entered the fall with only a fraction of the cash of his leading rivals. His $9 million in the bank on Sept. 30 trailed Mr. Buttigieg by $14.4 million, Ms. Warren by $16.7 million and Mr. Sanders by $24.7 million, gaps he is unlikely to substantially close.

That is perhaps one reason Mr. Biden reversed himself in late October and blessed his supporters’ forming a super PAC, which has already begun airing television ads in Iowa. (His campaign has said he reversed his stance because of anti-Biden ads funded by Mr. Trump.)

It has been a turbulent three months in the fund-raising world as one of the race’s stronger fund-raisers, Senator Kamala Harris of California, dropped out unexpectedly in early December, sparking a frenzy among other campaigns for her mostly California-based team of financiers. Former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York also entered the race and began to spend some of his multibillion-dollar personal fortune on an enormous nationwide television ad campaign, reshaping the financial landscape beyond the early-voting states where another billionaire, Tom Steyer, has been flooding the airwaves.

Besides the race’s four polling leaders, Andrew Yang, the businessman who has surprised political observers with his staying power and a devoted online following he affectionately calls the Yang Gang, is expected to be the only other contender to crack $10 million raised in the fourth quarter.

“We expect to raise more than $12.5 million, at least 25 percent more than the previous quarter,” said S.Y. Lee, a spokesman for Mr. Yang.

How candidates are raising their money — and whom they solicit for contributions — has become a central point of contention in the primary in recent weeks, with Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren touting their independence from the traditional world of big contributors while hitting Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg for their reliance on wealthy donors.

“For far too long, the wealthy and the powerful have used their money to buy our candidates and our elections,” said Tim Tagaris, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders. “And what Bernie Sanders is proving — for the first time — is that one can run for president without begging them for their money.”

In a sign of the breadth of donors that Mr. Sanders counts, his campaign was pushing for 135,000 donations in the last two days of the year; Mr. Biden has set a goal of 500,000 donations for the entire quarter.

Ms. Warren, who like Mr. Sanders has decided not to make appeals to big donors at traditional fund-raisers, has called for her rivals to disclose their lists of “bundlers,” who have gathered campaign checks for them. In turn, Ms. Warren has been pressed about the $10 million she transferred to her presidential campaign from her 2018 Senate bid, when she was still courting such large contributors.

Both Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg recently did disclose their bundlers, with Mr. Buttigieg sharing the names of more than 100 people or couples who had gathered at least $25,000 and Mr. Biden disclosing more than 200. Mr. Biden appeared to time his release to minimize attention, revealing the names of his top fund-raisers late on the Friday evening after Christmas.

Mr. Biden has seen some of the bundlers for his former rivals who have left the race — especially Ms. Harris but also former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas — gravitate toward him as he continues to lead in national polling. Former Harris supporters now backing Mr. Biden include John Emerson, an investment executive in California; two influential New York finance-world fund-raisers, Marc Lasry and Blair Effron; and Alex Heckler, an attorney in Florida.

“As the field narrows, we’re seeing Democrats coalesce and rally around Vice President Biden,” said Kate Bedingfield, a deputy campaign manager for Mr. Biden. “Voters want a candidate who can bring people together and defeat Donald Trump, and a sense of urgency about that as we approach voting is clearly driving a new wave of support.”

Wade Randlett, a fund-raiser for Mr. Biden in the San Francisco Bay Area, said that concerns over Mr. Biden’s cash had been overblown and that “if money were the majority driver of success we’d be talking about a Bloomberg-Steyer ticket.”

“Money matters because you need to have enough,” Mr. Randlett said. “And we are definitely going to have enough to prosecute a campaign in all 50 states through the primaries.”

Ms. Warren was the No. 2 fund-raiser in the field in the third quarter, when she raised $24.6 million. But her campaign said on Friday that she was “a good chunk behind” that mark this time, with a little more than $17 million collected with four days left in the quarter.

“It will be nearly impossible to match last quarter at this point. But we need to start closing the gap,” read one Warren solicitation for donations.

For the first time in the campaign, Ms. Warren also signed an email to the list of a group that supports her, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which split the proceeds between her and the organization.

Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign has set a $750,000 target in the final 48 hours of the quarter. He recently told The Des Moines Register’s editorial board that “the average contribution was coming in around 30 bucks.”

Beyond the end of the year, Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign is expecting at least a small windfall in early January from Wall Street, where he has become a popular figure, as some donors are waiting to avoid running afoul of laws restricting contributions to those who oversee public pensions (Mr. Buttigieg will then no longer be mayor).

Two other candidates who have struggled relative to the leaders to raise money and garner attention are hoping to finish 2019 on a high note.

Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who missed the December debate because of the polling threshold, said two weeks ago that he needed to raise $800,000 to have his best quarter of the year. His previous high was $6 million. He had raised $641,000 of the $800,000 goal as of early Monday, according to a campaign fund-raising email.

Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota has announced raising more than $1 million in the 24 hours after two recent debates, and has said she would report more money than last quarter, when she raised $4.8 million.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

As Candidates Jostle for Position, a Long Race May Become a Marathon

Westlake Legal Group 07dems2020-1-facebookJumbo As Candidates Jostle for Position, a Long Race May Become a Marathon Warren, Elizabeth Trump, Donald J south carolina Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Political Advertising New Hampshire Klobuchar, Amy Iowa Harris, Kamala D Democratic Party Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Bloomberg, Michael R Blacks Biden, Joseph R Jr

MASON CITY, Iowa — With just under two months until the Iowa caucuses, the already-volatile Democratic presidential race has grown even more unsettled, setting the stage for a marathon nominating contest between the party’s moderate and liberal factions.

Pete Buttigieg’s surge, Bernie Sanders’s revival, Elizabeth Warren’s struggles and the exit of Kamala Harris have upended the primary and, along with Joseph R. Biden’s Jr. enduring strength with nonwhite voters, increased the possibility of a split decision after the early nominating states.

That’s when Michael R. Bloomberg aims to burst into the contest — after saturating the airwaves of the Super Tuesday states with tens of millions of dollars of television ads.

With no true front-runner and three other candidates besides Mr. Bloomberg armed with war chests of over $20 million, Democrats are confronting the prospect of a drawn-out primary reminiscent of the epic Clinton-Obama contest in 2008.

“There’s a real possibility Pete wins here, Warren takes New Hampshire, Biden South Carolina and who knows about Nevada,” said Sue Dvorsky, a former Iowa Democratic chair. “Then you go into Super Tuesday with Bloomberg throwing $30 million out of his couch cushions and this is going to go for a while.”

That’s a worrisome prospect for a party already debating whether it has a candidate strong enough to defeat President Trump next November. The contenders have recently begun to attack one another more forcefully — Ms. Warren, a nonaggressor for most of the campaign, took on Mr. Buttigieg on Thursday night — and the sparring could get uglier the longer the primary continues.

A monthslong delegate battle would also feature a lengthy public airing of the party’s ideological fissures and focus more attention on contentious policies like single-payer health care while allowing Mr. Trump to unleash millions of dollars in attack ads portraying Democrats as extreme.

The candidates are already planning for a long race, hiring staff members for contests well past the initial early states. But at the moment they are also grappling with a primary that has evolved into something of a three-dimensional chess match, in which moves that may seem puzzling are taken with an eye toward a future payoff.

Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders, for example, are blocking each other from consolidating much of the left, but instead of attacking each other the two senators are training their fire on Mr. Buttigieg, the South Bend, Ind., mayor. He has taken a lead in Iowa polls yet spent much of the past week courting black voters in the South.

And Mr. Biden is concluding an eight-day bus tour across Iowa, during which he has said his goal is to win the caucuses, but his supporters privately say they would also be satisfied if Mr. Buttigieg won and denied Ms. Warren a victory.

It may seem a little confusing, but there’s a strategy behind the moves.

Mr. Sanders and Mr. Warren each covet the other’s progressive supporters but are wary about angering them by attacking each other. So Ms. Warren has begun drawing an implicit contrast by emphasizing her gender — a path more available now with Ms. Harris’s exit — and they are both targeting a shared opponent whom many of their fiercest backers disdain: Mr. Buttigieg.

The mayor has soared in heavily white Iowa, but has virtually no support among voters of color. So he started airing commercials in South Carolina spotlighting his faith and took his campaign there and into Alabama this past week — an acknowledgment that Iowans may be uneasy about him if he can’t demonstrate appeal with more diverse voters.

As for Mr. Biden, his supporters think he would effectively end the primary by winning Iowa. But they believe the next best outcome would be if Mr. Buttigieg fends off Ms. Warren there to keep her from sweeping both Iowa and New Hampshire and gaining too much momentum. They are convinced she’s far more of a threat than Mr. Buttigieg to build a multiracial coalition and breach the former vice president’s firewall in Nevada and South Carolina.

Meanwhile, no other hopeful is drawing more chatter in Iowa as a compromise choice among moderates than Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has spent more time in the state than any of the top candidates.

Taken together, the shadowboxing, bank shots and sheer uncertainty of it all reflect what a muddle this race has become. Besides the party’s unifying hunger to defeat Mr. Trump, the only clarity is the rigid divide among voters along generational, ideological and racial lines.

These fractures could ensure different outcomes in the first four nominating states — mostly white Iowa and New Hampshire and more diverse Nevada and South Carolina — going into Super Tuesday on March 3.

That’s the day on which Mr. Bloomberg is staking his candidacy, when 14 states are up for grabs. The former New York mayor, a political centrist, is skipping the early states and pouring tens of millions of his money into Super Tuesday in hopes that the field remains split by then or that one of the progressives is pulling away.

If he gains traction, that could augur a primary that may not be over by the time the party gathers in Milwaukee next summer for its convention.

Of course, it’s hardly a forgone conclusion that the Democratic contest will drag on. The front-loaded calendar means that if one candidate does rattle off early victories, he or she will be able to amass a fearsome delegate advantage.

The last time the party confronted such an uncertain primary, in 2004, John Kerry revived his campaign shortly before voting began and captured Iowa and New Hampshire, allowing him to quickly secure the nomination.

Yet no candidate today may prove capable of extinguishing the embers of the primary the way Mr. Kerry did. Four candidates — Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren, Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Bloomberg — are well funded or enjoy reliable streams of money.

Perhaps more significantly, the divisions in the party are now wider than they were in the previous decade, with opposing ideological factions far less willing to settle.

Nowhere is the Democratic race more fluid than in Iowa, where 70 percent of caucusgoers said in a Des Moines Register-CNN poll last month that their minds were not made up.

Mr. Buttigieg emerged atop the field in the survey, but he is now under attack on multiple fronts.

Ms. Warren is assailing him for not being more transparent about his donors, Mr. Sanders is targeting him for not offering a more expansive free college proposal, and a super PAC supporting Senator Cory Booker is on the air in Iowa favorably contrasting Mr. Booker to Mr. Buttigieg.

And Iowa allies of his rivals are taking on Mr. Buttigieg even more aggressively.

“Mayor Pete is vanilla ice cream,” said Claire Celsi, an Iowa state senator supporting Ms. Warren. “He’s just somebody that people can agree on, but the problem is that we live in a way more complicated world than that.”

The former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who is backing Mr. Biden, likened Mr. Buttigieg to a Democrat many in the party would just as soon forget.

“He reminds me of, not in terms of character, but in terms of people reacting to him, as John Edwards in 2004,” Mr. Vilsack said. “He’s something new, he’s a comer.”

Lis Smith, an adviser to Mr. Buttigieg, said the attacks were a result of voters “gravitating toward his campaign.”

“They can attack Pete all they want, he’s going to be laser focused on talking about why he’s the best person to bring this country together on Day 1 of a post-Trump presidency,” she said.

But Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign recognizes how urgently he must broaden his coalition — and prominent Democrats have nudged the campaign to focus less on the details of his plans for black voters and do more to emphasize his Christianity and military service. He is now up on television in South Carolina quoting scripture and in Iowa with a spot that features an African-American veteran recalling their service.

Mr. Biden is counting on these efforts to fall short and for Mr. Buttigieg to meet the same fate of previous Democratic hopefuls who lost because they could not expand their support beyond upscale white voters.

“There is no one else who is in a position to all of a sudden to do what Barack was able to do,” Mr. Biden told reporters this past week, suggesting that Mr. Buttigieg would not gain support with black voters by winning Iowa, as Mr. Obama did in 2008.

Ms. Warren is less inclined to discuss tactical matters, but her recent moves reflect a candidate very much concerned about the direction of the race.

She has drastically cut her stump speech, leaving more time for questions from voters, and after saying for months that she does not want to criticize her fellow Democrats she is now confronting Mr. Buttigieg over his high-dollar fund-raising.

Just as striking, she is taking more overt steps to highlight her history-making potential. After Ms. Harris dropped out, Ms. Warren sent a fund-raising email noting that “two women senators,” Ms. Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand, “have been forced out of this race while billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg have been allowed to buy their way in.”

Addressing voters in Iowa City, Ms. Warren announced to booming applause that she planned to wear a pink Planned Parenthood scarf at her presidential inauguration and in a discussion about her plans won cheers for another reference to her gender.

“I will do everything that, oh, I love saying this, a president can do all by herself,” Ms. Warren said.

What has been puzzling to her rivals, though, is what she has not done as a candidate: namely, spend more money on advertising in Iowa.

She ceded the airwaves here to rivals like Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg for all of October, and her spending in November was less than half of theirs, according to Advertising Analytics, an ad tracking firm.

Ms. Klobuchar has also not had much of an advertising footprint, but many Iowa Democrats believe she is the most likely candidate to make that late push.

Strolling into a Des Moines coffee shop recently, Connie Boesen, a city councilor, pronounced that she was leaning in Ms. Klobuchar’s direction because “she’s realistic,” a reference to the senator’s moderate politics.

For many Democrats, especially those in Northern Iowa, the Minnesota senator is a familiar figure who has more experience than Mr. Buttigieg but is not as old as Mr. Biden.

Asked who they were considering after a Biden town hall meeting this past week, three voters from outside Mason City all cited Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg — but also added a third name: Ms. Klobuchar.

Sydney Ember contributed reporting from Des Moines and Reid Epstein from Washington.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com