Biden Has Raised More Donations Than Trump For 2 Months

Poll after poll has shown Joe Biden leading Donald Trump in the race for the presidency this year. But it's not just the polls where Biden has an edge. For the last two months, Biden has raised more money for his campaign than Donald Trump has.

In May, Biden topped Trump in campaign donations by $6.8 million. In July, that difference grew to $10 million.

Five Democrats Lead In 4th Quarter Campaign Donations

The chart above shows the self-reported numbers for fourth quarter campaign donations for Democrats. Bernie Sanders led everyone with $34.5 million -- followed by Pete Buttigieg ($24.7 million), Joe Biden ($22.7 million), Elizabeth Warren ($17 million), and Andrew Yang ($16.5 million).

The media is making a big deal about Sanders leading the field and getting his biggest donation numbers of the year. And I agree that these numbers are important -- for all the candidates. But we need to keep one thing in mind. The nomination is not won by who has the most money (or who has the largest crowds or who is leading in the polls).

If it was determined by money, then Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer would have a huge lead over all the other candidates -- because they have spent more than all the other candidates have raised. But they aren't leading, because the race isn't determined that way.

What do these numbers mean? It means that the five candidates in the chart (Sanders, Buttigieg, Biden, Warren, and Yang) have enough money to compete for the nomination -- and so do Steyer and Bloomberg. But while candidates need money to compete, that money is no guarantee of winning.

Only one thing determines who wins the nomination -- VOTES (which translate into delegates). And staring in about a month, the voters will begin to tell us who the nominee will be.

Second Quarter Fundraising For ALL Democratic Candidates

All the Democratic candidates for the party's presidential nomination have finally reported the second quarter fundraising totals (see chart above). Only five candidates had healthy fundraising totals -- totals that will keep them in the race for quite a while. They are Pete Buttigieg ($24.9 million), Joe Biden ($22 million), Elizabeth Warren ($19.2 million), Bernie Sanders ($18 million), and Kamala Harris ($11.8 million).

Only one other candidate averaged at least a million dollars a month for the four month period -- Cory Booker ($4.5 million).

The rest are in a lot of trouble. Unless they can get on the debate stage and perform well enough to break through to the leading pack, they will soon have to abandon their presidential quest. They will have to quit, because they won't have the money to keep going.

The chart above is from The New York Times.

Average Support And Fundraising For Leading Democrats

These charts give us an idea of how the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination is going so far. The top chart shows the average poll support (from RealClearPolitics) for the top 10 Democratic candidates. Support is shown for only the candidate receiving an average of polls support of at least 1%.

The second chart shows the amount of money raised by the leading candidates in the 2nd quarter of 2019. Note that only five of the top ten have released their fundraising totals. That probably means the second five are disappointed in the amount they have raised. They have until July 15th to report their totals for the 2nd quarter.

The top fundraiser in the second quarter was Pete Buttigieg, who raised $24.8 million. But he lags far behind in support, and will need every bit of that (and more) if he is to join the top tier of candidates (Biden, Harris, Sanders, and Warren).

Joe Biden raised the second largest amount at $21.5 million, and currently leads in support with 26%.

Elizabeth Warren raised $19.1 million, and has 13.8% average support. All of her money came from individual donors (which is impressive, since she doesn't accept PAC money or hold high-dollar fundraising dinners).

Bernie Sanders raised $18 million, and has 14% average support. In 2016, Sanders was a fund-raising machine -- but with more candidates in the 2020 race, his totals have fallen (and I suspect Warren is getting a lot of the money that might have gone to him).

Kamala Harris raised $12 million, and has 15.2% average support. She received a significant bump in support after the first Democratic debate, but she's going to need to do a better job fundraising if she is to maintain her place among the leaders. That's possible, because $2 million of her donations came in right after the debate.

Biden Raises Big Money In His First Day As A Candidate

Before he announced as a candidate for the 2020 Democratic Party nomination, I heard a lot of pundits on cable news talking about how Joe Biden was making a mistake by not entering the presidential race as early as others. They said the supporters and donors would already be attached to other candidates if he waited.

It seems those pundits were wrong (which they often are). The Biden campaign has revealed that they raised about $6.3 million in his first 24 hours as a candidate. That's the same kind of big money that some others raised quickly (like O'Rourke and Sanders), and significantly more than most of the candidates in the race.

Those pundits had figured that Democrats would quickly jump on one bandwagon or another. That hasn't happened. Most Democrats (including me) have not made a decision on who to support yet. They are considering several candidates -- maybe as many as five or six. And if they have a preference right now, it is a soft one that could change.

I doubt that most Democrats are going to pick a strong favorite until at least the first debates are held in June, and maybe later than that. This election is too important, and Democrats want to make sure they pick the right candidate -- one that can kick Trump out of the White House.

Democratic Candidate First Quarter Fundraising Totals

As I write this post, only 15 of the 19 presidential candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2020 have posted their first quarter fundraising totals. Three of the four who have not (Swalwell, Ryan, and Bennet) have only been in the race a few days, and are unlikely to have raised much. The fourth is Tulsi Gabbard. She has been running for almost the full quarter, so her reticence in reporting is probably due to an embarrassingly low number.

John Delaney has actually raised $12.1 million, but he gave himself $11.7 million of that. On the chart, I only included the donations he received from other people.

These numbers are reported by CNN.com.

Beto's Final Senate Fundraising Amount Tops $80 Million

Beto O'Rourke topped Ted Cruz in fundraising for seven of the eight fundraising periods -- and wound up raising more than twice what Cruz raised. This was remarkable considering O'Rourke accepted no money from PAC's (only from individual donors), while Cruz did get PAC money.

Here's part of what Tom Benning reported in the Dallas Morning News:

Rep. Beto O'Rourke ended up raising an astonishing $80 million in his failed bid to unseat Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, putting an exclamation point on the El Paso Democrat's record-setting Senate fundraising haul.

The final tally, released late Thursday, is sure to intensify speculation that O'Rourke could mount a campaign in 2020 against Republican President Donald Trump.

Despite his relatively lean political resume, O'Rourke has received perhaps the most buzz of any potential Democratic contender for the White House. Even former President Barack Obama hailed him last month, right after the two reportedly met at Obama's office in D.C.

Much of the attention on O'Rourke has focused on a frenetic campaign style that helped him come within three points of toppling Cruz — the best a Democrat has done statewide in Texas in years — and a social-media-friendly charisma that captivated liberals all over the U.S.

But there's no overlooking the El Pasoan's herculean ability to muster up campaign cash.

O'Rourke's latest campaign finance report, filed with the Federal Election Commission, showed he hauled in $10.1 million from Oct. 18 to Nov. 26, a period that covers roughly the three weeks before and the three weeks after the Nov. 6 election.

That final push only upped the dollar figure on O'Rourke's Senate campaign record, a sum that came despite his decision to reject donations from political action committees.

O'Rourke instead built his war chest with individual contributions, collecting more than $61 million alone via ActBlue, an online portal that has made it easy for Democrats across the country to make recurring, small-dollar gifts to their favorite candidates.

He also had little trouble spending his bounty, ending the campaign with just $477,000 cash on hand.

If Money Talks, Democrats Are Dominating The Conversation

(This chart is from The Washington Post.)

(This chart is from FiveThirtyEight.com.)

In this modern political era, it is said that money talks -- that the candidate that has the most money to spend has a much better chance of winning. If that is true, then the congressional Democratic candidates are looking very good.

As the first chart shows, in the nine previous elections the Democrats have raised more money than their Republican opponents in congressional races only once out of nine elections -- 2008, when they did very well. This year, congressional Democratic candidates have outraged their GOP opponents significantly. In fact, the Democrats set a new record for congressional fundraising. The raised over $1 billion ($1,066,884,817 for Democrats to $709,059,829 for Republicans).

And the good news is that money was spread around to benefit a lot of Democrats (instead of just a few). As the second chart shows, 232 Democrats have raised over $500,000, while only 179 Republicans raised that much. And 144 Democrats raised at least $1 million while only 84 Republicans did -- 73 Democrats raised at least $2 million while only 17 Republicans did.

If the adage about money talking in politics is true, then election day is going to be a very nice shade of blue!

O'Rourke Sets Record For Fundraising In Last Quarter

Democratic candidate for Senate in Texas, Beto O'Rourke, has set a new record for fundraising in a single quarter (3 months). He raised $38.1 million in the most recently reported quarter. That money came from 802,836 individual donors. Not a single penny came from a PAC.

Ted Cruz, the Republican incumbent, raised less than one-third of O'Rourke's total in that same quarter. Cruz raised $12 million, and some of that money did come from PAC's.

That boosts O'Rourke's total fundraising to $61.7 million. Cruz's total funds raised is $29.5 million.

This does not guarantee O'Rourke will win the election. The incumbent always has an edge, especially in red-state Texas. But it does mean the Democrat had the funds to compete and had a lot of enthusiastic supporters. If he loses, he can't blame it on not having the money to compete (which is a nice change for statewide Democratic candidates in Texas).

Collins Vote Has Raised Millions For Her Next Opponent

(Caricatures of Susan Collins and Susan Rice are by DonkeyHotey.)

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) has claimed to be a moderate voice in the U.S. Senate. But her vote to confirm Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court has exposed her. She is no moderate, but just another Republican party hack supporting the corporate white patriarchy, and willing to lie to do that.

But this vote was definitely over the line, and it may cost her dearly. By voting for Kavanaugh, she has assured that her Democratic opponent in 2020 will have the funds to run a good race against her.

After her mendacious speech on the Senate floor in support of Kavanaugh, CrowdPac began raising funds online for her next opponent. They had hoped to raise $4 million (which would allow someone to run a great campaign in Maine). They will likely reach that goal. As I write this, there fundraising total is already $3,421,769.

Who might that opponent be? Susan Rice (who was first the ambassador to the United Nations and then the National Security Advisor in the Obama administration) has expressed an interest in running. And I think she could be a formidable candidate.

But whoever the Democrats select as their candidate will start with a substantial campaign war chest.

$800 Million Dark Money Spent On Campaigns 2010-2016

Thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, groups may spend an unlimited amount on political campaigns. And those groups don't have to reveal where they get the money they spend. That money spent without revealing the donors is called "dark money". Between January of 2010 and December of 2016, about $800 million of dar money was spent on political campaigns. And three quarters of that money ($600 million) has been spent by only 15 groups. Those 15 groups are listed above. Note that most of the money spent is by right-wing groups (who spent the money supporting Republicans).

This information is contained in a new report from Issue One called Dark Money Illuminated.

Cruz Is Lying - O'Rourke Accepts NO PAC MONEY!

Ted Cruz has been embarrassed in the fundraising race this year. He has not been able to raise anywhere near as much money as his opponent in the Texas Senate race (Beto O'Rourke -- and a good hunk of what he has raised has come from political PAC's, while O'Rourke spurns PAC money.

So, how does Cruz handle his embarrassment? He accuses O'Rourke of doing what he himself is guilty of -- accepting PAC money. Of course, Beto's supporters knew that was a lie, but the nonpartisan fact-checkers at Politifact decided to find out for themselves. Here's what they found:

So, has O’Rourke not taken PAC money?

Chris Evans of O’Rourke’s campaign replied to our inquiry about this claim by noting in an email that for the second quarter of 2018, O’Rourke reported raising more than $10.4 million from individuals and absent PAC donations. Evans said all of O’Rourke’s 2017-18 filings with the Federal Election Commission would show a similar pattern--all contributions from individuals, none from PACs.

On the FEC’s website, we checked O’Rourke’s seven campaign finance reportscovering 2017 through June 2018. In the period, the reports state, O’Rourke’s campaign reported raising more than $23.5 million entirely from individuals. Each report shows a zero for contributions from PACs.

Cruz’s Senate campaign reported raising more than $14 million in the same period--counting a little over $1 million from PACs, according to its finance report filed in July 2018.

Months after O’Rourke made his claim to Maher, Cruz’s campaign suggested that O’Rourke had benefited from a PAC’s--running afoul of his no-PACs self-description. In July 2018, as noted in a Dallas Morning News account, Cruz said O’Rourke had accepted $167,408 in contributions collected, or bundled, from individuals by the J Street PAC, which says it endorses candidates based on goals including a focus on American diplomacy "toward a two-state outcome between Israel and the Palestinians."

To our inquiry, Evans defended the PAC-bundled donations, saying by email: "Each contribution was made by an individual following individual contribution limits and the reporting requirements mandated for individuals such as name, address, employer."

We separately heard back from the Center for Responsive Politics, which has long tracked the influence of money in politics.

Andrew Mayersohn told us by email that the center doesn’t consider PAC earmarking/bundling of donations by individuals to be the same as a PAC contribution. Mayersohn also pointed us to an Aug. 6, 2018, Associated Press fact-check confirming that $170,000 in donations by individuals were routed to O’Rourke’s campaign through the J Street PAC, "which also hosted an event to collect individual donations to put directly toward his campaign."

That story quotes an unidentified FEC spokeswoman saying the commission doesn’t consider individuals’ donations delivered through "conduit" PACs to be PAC money. The AP story went on: "Neither do campaign finance experts, who say the donations are more transparent than PAC donations. ‘No, it's not a PAC donation,’ said Victoria Farrar-Myers, an expert on campaign finance at Southern Methodist University in Dallas." Noted too:  By law, individual donations are capped at $2,700 per election while PACs may donate up to $5,000.

Our ruling

O’Rourke’s campaign finance reports from the launch of his candidacy in 2017 through June 2018 show no PAC contributions. O’Rourke didn’t object to a PAC focused on Israel bundling donations for his campaign, but all of those were made by individuals.

We rate this claim True.

4 Texas Dem. House Candidates Have Raised Over $1 Million

(The photo of Mary "MJ" Hegar , Democratic candidate for U.S. House District 31 in Texas, is from her campaign website.)

In a normal election year, if a House candidate raises between $300,000 and $400,000 for their campaign, it is considered to be a triumph. But there are four Texas Democratic candidates running for House seats currently held by Republicans that have blown way past that mark in raising campaign funds.

One of them is the candidate in my own House District -- MJ Hegar, who is running against incumbent John Carter in District 31. Her first campaign video went viral, getting millions of views (https://youtu.be/Zi6v4CYNSIQ) and helping her to raise $750,000. Added to the funds she had already raised, that means she has raised about $1.1 million in the second quarter of this year.

District 31 is listed as "likely Republican", but it looks like Hegar will have the necessary funds to challenge that assumption -- and maybe even unseat the incumbent (who has been in Congress since 2002). This is the first time Carter will face a strong and fully-funded candidate.

The other three Democrats who have raised more than a million dollars are all in districts considered to be very competitive. They are Colin Allred in House District 32 ($1.1 million in second quarter), Gina Ortiz Jones in House District 23 ($1.2 million in second quarter), and Lizzie Pannill Fletcher in House District 7 (over $1 million in second quarter). All three of these districts voted for Clinton in 2016, and with the Democratic candidates being properly funded, could easily flip to Democratic control.

Currently, Democrats control only 11 of the 36 Congressional Districts in Texas. If they could flip 3 or 4 of the GOP-held seats, it would really help Democrats nationwide to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Cruz Violates Campaign Finance Law - Retains Race Lead

Where does the U.S. Senate race in Texas stand? Can Democrat Beto O'Rourke really unseat Republican Ted Cruz? Frankly, It's anyone's guess right now. There have been only four polls done on the race in the last couple of months, and they are all over the place -- placing the gap between the candidates at somewhere between 5 and 11 points.

The RealClearPolitics average of the polls (which is usually more accurate than any single poll) has the gap at 8.2 points (Cruz 47% - O'Rourke 38.8% - Unsure/Other 14.2%). That would mean O'Rourke has a chance, but more work must be done -- and there would need to be a huge turnout of urban voters, young voters, and voters in South Texas.

My attitude may be rather pollyannish, but I think O'Rourke has a chance to pull off a minor miracle in November -- a better chance than Democrats have had in a couple of decades. It won't be easy though. The state party needs to get behind O'Rourke 100% with funding, registration efforts, and a huge GOTV effort.

Meanwhile, Cruz has violated federal campaign contributions law for a third time. He may need to do that because he's trailing O'Rourke badly in campaign contributions. Here's how those Cruz campaign violations are described by Rachel Cohrs in The Dallas Morning News:

Sen. Ted Cruz’s Senate campaign committee has received three letters from the Federal Election Commission this election cycle for accepting campaign contributions that exceeded federal limits.

The FEC sent the “Ted Cruz for Senate” committee letters in September, April and June. . . .

Brett Kappel works on FEC compliance cases as an attorney, and said it is rare for Senate campaigns to receive repeated notices of contribution limit violations. However, he said the letters to Cruz’s committee have been from the FEC’s reporting analysis division, not its enforcement division.

“Normally it’s not a significant factor, but in some cases it can become an issue,” Kappel said. “They’re not there yet.”

The letters named dozens of individuals and one political action committee that gave to the Cruz campaign above the $2,700 individual contribution limit per election and the annual $5,000 PAC limit.

Cruz’s committee responded to the first two FEC inquiries by reattributing donations to donors’ spouses, redesignating contributions from the primary to general election race, returning money to Cruz’s joint fundraising committee, and refunding some donations.

These are legal methods of complying with campaign finance law. . . .

Part of the reason for Cruz’s reported excessive contributions could be the structure of online contributing on his website.

Donors are enrolled to give automatic monthly contributions unless they opt out. These monthly payments may not stop when contribution limits are reached. . . .

Brendan Fischer, the director of federal reform for the Campaign Legal Center, said the Cruz campaign committee’s citations were unusual because some individuals exceeded limits in more than one instance.

“They should have the controls in place to stop the automatic donations when the limits are reached,” Fischer said.

Cruz’s challenger in November, El Paso Democrat Beto O’Rourke, has not received notices from the FEC flagging excessive contributions.  

The Good News And Bad News In The 2018 Senate Races

The chart above is from talkingpointsmemo.com. It shows the campaign money situation in the most competitive U.S. Senate races in 2018 -- the money raised in the first quarter, the cash on hand, and the amount spent so far.

The good news is that Democrats are not having much trouble raising campaign funds this year. Most of them raised more in the first quarter than their Republican opponents did, and most have more money on hand. That means they will likely have the funds to run a vigorous campaign -- at least as vigorous as their Republican opponents. That's a nice change, since far to often in the past they have been underfunded.

The bad news is that the Democrats must defend 23 seats, while the Republicans are only defending 8 seats. That means the Democrats will have to hold all their seats and then take 3 of the 8 Republican seats to take control of the Senate. And if the Democrats lose one or two seats in some red states (like West Virginia or North Dakota), then they will have to win 4 or 5 of the 8 GOP seats.

It can be done, but it will not be easy. Democrats will have to turn out in very large numbers to accomplish it.

If the Democrats fall short in 2018 in the Senate, the further good news is that they will have an even better chance in 2020. In 2020, the Republicans will have to defend 20 seats while the Democrats will need to defend only 11 seats. And those Republicans will have to run with a very unpopular and flawed presidential candidate at the top of their ticket.

O'Rourke Raises Twice As Much As Cruz In First Quarter

The amount of money raised by candidates in the Texas senate race has now been reported, and it shows that Democrats are indeed energized this year. They think they have a real chance of kicking Ted Cruz out of the U.S. Senate, and they are donating big to his opponent's campaign.

Democrat Beto O'Rourke raised more than twice as much as Cruz did in the first quarter of this year. O'Rourke raised $6.7 million, while Cruz raised only $3.2 million. And O'Rouke's money came only from voters. He took no money from PAC's or super-PAC's. Cruz raised only $2.7 million from voters. The rest came from his "leadership PAC".

Thanks to the great first quarter, it looks like O'Rourke is going to have the money to wage a good campaign against Cruz. Cruz reports $8.2 million in on-hand money, while O'Rourke reports slightly over $8 million.

This is great news. In the past, Democratic statewide candidates have been vastly underfunded, and their opponents were able to easily outspend them. That's not the case in the Texas senate race this year!

Tax Bill Would Let 'Dark Money' Donors Get Tax Deduction

(Cartoon image is by Monte Wolverton in the Los Angeles Daily News.)

Much has been written about the odious GOP tax reform plan to give huge tax cuts to corporations and the rich. But one big give-away that's flown under the radar is a plan to let secret dark money political contributors get a tax deduction for those contributions. This would allow billionaires and millionaires to give even more money to buy a political candidate (since they could recoup that money by writing it off as a decuction on their tax form. It would be one more giant step toward an oligarchy, and away from democracy.

This is from CNN.com:

For the first time in American politics, anonymous "dark money" political donations could become tax-deductible. That's if a provision currently being debated between House and Senate negotiators makes it into the final tax bill.

The issue at hand started with the "Johnson Amendment," named after then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson's 1954 measure that prohibits nonprofit groups who maintain tax-exempt status, including churches and charities, from directly participating in politics.

But efforts to repeal the Johnson Amendment have resulted in language that would ease political speech rules for all nonprofits. The results, critics say, could effectively let people deduct de-facto political donations and further hide those donations and spending from the public. . . .

The original bill introduced in the House this year limited the Johnson Amendment repeal to "churches," but the language was changed in the House Ways and Means Committee to broaden the scope of the repeal to include all 501(c)(3) nonprofits, meaning every nonprofit would be able to endorse and support candidates and causes. . . .

The change would also cost billions of dollars. The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the rule change would cost the US treasury around $2.1 billion over the next decade in lost revenue, assuming billions of dollars of political donations would be funneled through newly tax-deductible nonprofits. . . .

One of the outcomes of the Citizens United ruling was that politically-active nonprofits, or 501(c)4 groups, could accept unlimited anonymous contributions, so called "dark money." According to the Campaign Legal Center, at least $800 million of dark money has been spent since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling. With the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, donors could now shift their money into tax-deductible 501(c)(3)s. . . .

With the new rules in place, billions would likely be diverted from Super PACs into charities. And that new money could come with strings attached. Donors would be free to make donations to a charity or religious organization contingent on the group supporting a certain piece of legislation or candidate.  

Moore Scandal Has Boosted Fundraising For Doug Jones

(The photos above of Doug Jones and Roy Moore are from al.com.)

The following is by Alex Seitz-Wald at nbcnews.com:

The Roy Moore scandal has unleashed a torrent of online donations to Democrat Doug Jones, who was collecting around $250,000 per day in its immediate aftermath, according to two sources familiar with the matter who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity. 

Democrats may end up in the unlikely situation of dramatically outspending the GOP in the Senate contest in deep red Alabama now that national Republicans have abandoned Moore. The Republican candidate's bank account had been depleted by a tough primary battle even before nine women came forward to accuse him of sexual impropriety. 

The scandal has super-charged Jones' already robust online fundraising to "Ossoff-level money," as one Democrat put it, referring to failed Democratic congressional candidate Jon Ossoff, who amassed a staggering $30 million in a Georgia special election this year. 

Unlike Ossoff, however, who was matched by an equally massive amount of GOP money, Jones' spending may go unanswered by pro-Moore forces through the Dec. 12 election.

Jones has kept national Democrats at arm's length, and skipped a Washington fundraiser this week. But that hasn’t stopped him from quietly enjoying the fruits of Democratic stars' prodigious email fundraising lists. 

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut raised more than $135,000 for Jones, according to an aide, while the liberal blog Daily Kos raked in nearly $138,000 for Jones since endorsing him just before the before The Washington Post published the first allegations against Moore. 

Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia, among others, also recently tapped their online donors on Jones' behalf. 

Jones' campaign did not specifically address its post-scandal fundraising. But in a statement, campaign chairman Giles Perkins said, "We have seen a pickup in fundraising since Roy Moore was nominated and Alabama's choice became clear." 

Moore started October with roughly half as much money in the bank as Jones, according to the most recent campaign finance disclosures available, and the cavalry most likely isn’t riding to his rescue.

Some Good News And Bad News For Democrats

First, the good news. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) announced it has raised $31 million in the first three months of 2017. That's a record amount of donations for this early in a campaign season for the DCCC -- and it included 121,000 new donors (people who had never before given to the DCCC).

DCCC spokesman Tyler Law said:

"Our record-breaking fund-raising is a clear reflection of the urgency that people have towards fighting back against a reckless Republican agenda, including ongoing efforts to rip apart the Affordable Care Act. The massive amount of small-dollar, online donations — much of which came from first-time donors — provides another clear sign that the grassroots energy is behind House Democrats this cycle."

Now the bad news. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) raised even more than their Democratic counterpart -- about $36 million in those same three months.

Democrats shouldn't think the 2018 elections are going to be a walk in the park thanks to strong opposition to Donald Trump. The Republican moneymen are showing they are willing to spend a large amount to keep their Republicans in control of Congress.

Clinton Continues To Raise More Money Than Trump

Through July 31st, Hillary Clinton (and committees and Democratic Party) had raised $573 million dollars. In the same time period, Donald Trump (and committees and Republican Party) had raised $333.4 million. That's a difference of $239.6 million.

And the gap continues to grow. In August, Clinton raised another $143 million, while Trump raised $90 million -- a gap of $53 million.

To date, the Clinton campaign has raised $716 million, while the Trump campaign has raised $423.4 million. That means that through August, Clinton has raised $292.6 million more than Trump.

NOTE -- These figures do not include money raised by Super-PACs.