Pay Dirt is a weekly foray into the pigpen of political funding. Subscribe here to get it in your inbox every Thursday.
It’s something of a political fundraising tradition—campaigns try to get ahead of the news and announce their totals before all the numbers are public, putting the best possible spin on their data before any Debbie Downers have a chance to put it in proper context.
That’s what happened last week, when the top presidential contenders each tried to write their own most flattering narrative before they released a set of highly anticipated fundraising disclosures. But now that those filings are in, the fog of spin has cleared, and we’re left with nothing but the numbers themselves.
Those numbers show that, of the campaign committees for the top three candidates—President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump, and Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis—the DeSantis operation raised the most last quarter. Add expenses to the equation, however, and Biden came out several million dollars ahead. And in another more narrow view, Biden actually outraised both of his Republican counterparts altogether.
Federal Election Commission filings for each committee show that the DeSantis campaign led last quarter in contributions, with $20.1 million. Biden was next at roughly $19.9 million, with Trump’s $17.7 million placing him in third. Factor in costs, and DeSantis wrapped the quarter with $12 million on hand. Trump, who already had a sizable bankroll, increased that stash by $9 million, with a total $22.5 million in his campaign account. Biden closed out with about $20 million on hand, posting a net gain of about $19 million.
But those totals can be sliced and spun into different metrics. None of the candidates were leaders across the board, and the filings suggest each campaign has its own challenges as well as its own strengths. That last fact was reflected in news reports ahead of the disclosures, with each campaign offering a different spin on who was the real king of the quarter.
When ABC News wrote up DeSantis’ advance announcement on July 6, the outlet noted that the numbers were only from the campaign committee itself. The reported $20 million haul “surpassed the amount that Trump’s campaign raised during its first two fundraising quarters,” the article said.
But the previous day, Politico reported that Trump’s operation had raised $35 million.
“The figure nearly doubled what [Trump] raised in Q1 and suggests the indictments are helping with fundraising,” Politico reported, carrying a Trumpworld talking point that by now is more than a little worn in the thread.
That number—now known to be about half the amount his campaign actually brought in—isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison to DeSantis. But unlike the DeSantis announcement, that data didn’t reflect Trump’s campaign committee alone.
The $35 million instead came from a joint fundraising committee, which splits its money between two other committees—the Trump campaign and his “Save America” leadership PAC. Those two different types of committees play distinct roles. For instance, the Save America money, which Trump can use for basically anything, is off-limits as far as his re-election efforts are concerned, because candidates can’t use leadership PAC funds to support their own campaign.
The Politico report noted that the Trump official cited as the source of the information “did not break down how much of the $35 million-plus went to the campaign and how much went to the PAC.” The campaign’s filing has now answered half that question, showing that just $15.2 million made its way from the joint committee to the campaign. (Save America won’t file its quarterly report until later this month.)
The Biden team waited a week to respond to those reports, only publicly announcing its totals on July 14, the day before the filing deadline. The scope of that data, however, was even broader than Trump’s joint fundraising claims.
As The New York Times and other outlets reported, Biden revealed a combined fundraising total of more than $72 million. On the surface, that’s double Trump’s joint fundraising haul, and Biden’s campaign cast it as a “blockbuster” quarter.
The $72 million, however, came from joint fundraising efforts that included the Democratic National Committee, which means Biden’s numbers could uniquely include six-figure checks from individual megadonors.
While the bottom line isn’t apples-to-apples to either Trump or DeSantis, it does reflect one aspect of political strength. Unlike his prospective GOP challengers, Biden’s operation is currently working in lock step with the national party, allowing him to draw early on from a broader and deeper donor base.
Those announcements offered three different spins, cherry-picking numbers to play to each candidate’s strength. In the end, the lowest announced total—the DeSantis campaign’s $20 million—was actually the most that any of the campaigns raised.
But after the filings put the spin in context, another consensus has begun to form: The real winner was Biden.
In part, that’s because the DeSantis and Trump campaigns are spending far more than Biden. Trump, perhaps to not much astonishment, led the pack, shelling out more than $9.1 million over the last three months. Notable expenses included nearly $1.5 million on costs directly associated with campaign events, roughly $4 million in various consulting fees, and more than $3.1 million for services directly associated with fundraising, including media placement, text messages, and donor lists.
The DeSantis campaign spent a little less—about $7.9 million. But DeSantis didn’t start with a bankroll like Trump, whose campaign came into the second quarter with $13.9 million cash on hand. The DeSantis campaign ended the period with about $8 million less in the bank than it raised, where Trump’s campaign turned in an overall gain, with its bottom line getting a $9 million bump, from $13.9 million to $22.5 million. (Biden, meanwhile, posted a quarterly gain of nearly $19 million.)
DeSantis’ key costs include about $3 million for services directly associated with fundraising (neck-and-neck with Trump on that front), including $900,000 for digital fundraising consulting and $840,000 for direct mail. His campaign reported another $920,000 in fees to the GOP online fundraising platform WinRed, where Trump’s costs there were effectively zero, likely because they were covered by the joint fundraising committee instead of the campaign.
DeSantis also notched about $1.5 million in travel-related expenses, including nearly $850,000 in pure travel costs. The governor has been criticized for trying to conceal his use of private jets owned by megadonors, and his latest report doesn’t offer too much in the way of transparency, listing all travel costs as “travel” without further clarification, such as for lodging and airfare. About $180,000 of those travel expenses went to companies that specialize in air charters, according to the filing. The Trump campaign, by comparison, listed about $563,000 in private air travel.
But those costs could lurk elsewhere in the DeSantis report. In June, for instance, the campaign made two hefty disbursements to a mystery company called “N2024D,” of about $283,000 and $200,000. Florida business records show that N2024D was created two days before DeSantis announced his candidacy, and it was incorporated by members of a GOP compliance firm, one of whom has served as treasurer for more than 500 political committees, according to FEC records.
Another $24,000 in travel costs went to Jones Companies, LLC, a Mississippi-based trucking and logistics operation whose owner, along with his wife, maxed out to DeSantis at the end of June.
Biden, however, is pinching every penny. His campaign reported spending just over $1.1 million, ending the quarter with more than $20 million on hand. The expenditures include a little north of $480,000 on costs associated with fundraising and outreach, less than $70,000 for consulting fees, and a grand total of $1,428.03 in travel and lodging expenses. And, without an official campaign headquarters, the Biden operation spent no money on rent. (Another side benefit to the DNC partnership—much of Biden’s campaign staff has reportedly holed up at the DNC.)
This week, numerous reports have pointed to signs of weakness in DeSantis’ numbers. That analysis draws in part from reports—published after the FEC filings were released—that the DeSantis team has fired staff as part of an effort to rein in the high burn rate.
While it’s notable that Biden quietly kept pace with two candidates who have been on unabashed publicity and fundraising blitzes, The New York Times reported that his campaign appears to be drawing much of its strength from wealthy megadonors, and is still light on small-dollar grassroots support.
DeSantis appears to have a similar problem. NPR reported on Monday that only 15 percent of his haul came from small donors, suggesting “a potential long-term problem” in the grassroots. On top of that, 70 percent of DeSantis contributors have already given the maximum individual amount, according to NBC News, meaning that the campaign has already tapped out most of its early wells of financial support.
Trump, whose time-honored tactic of relentlessly barraging supporters with fundraising emails and text messages has more than once threatened to dry out his revenue stream, might face a similar problem, though NPR noted that Trump’s joint fundraising committee drew more than half its 2022 funds from small donors.
DeSantis can at least lean on a well-funded super PAC, “Never Back Down.” But that gets at more questions about his fundraising.
Super PACs—which can raise unlimited amounts of money, including from corporations and “dark money” nonprofits—are supposed to operate independently from the candidates they support. But about $350,000 of the DeSantis campaign’s fundraising total came directly from a draft committee run by the Never Back Down super PAC. That direct transfer of funds is unprecedented and, according to an expert in campaign finance law, possibly outside the bounds of federal fundraising rules. Without that extra juice, the Biden campaign would have outraised his top two GOP challengers.
Saurav Ghosh, director of federal reform at the Campaign Legal Center, explained why the super PAC donations present a concern. While the super PAC’s contributions stuck to the rules governing “hard money”—money raised within certain limits for candidates—the arrangement also helps the campaign save money.
“While this money fits within the hard limits, the problem is that it’s being raised by the super PAC, which is underwriting the costs,” Ghosh told The Daily Beast.
“Given the independence super PACs are supposed to have, and where they get their money—which is special interests—they shouldn’t be in the business of taking care of fundraising costs for the campaign,” he said.
