The main reason why Obama has significantly outspent McCain is his refusal to take public financing. He's the first person in history to do so. President Bush did not take public financing for the primary campaign in 2004, but promised to take public money for the general election and did so, restricting himself to the same amount as John Kerry could spend, despite the fact that he could easily out-raise just about anyone on the planet.
The significance is that for those who take public financing, they are restricted to the $84 million given to them by the Treasury. They are not permitted to raise ANY funds for their campaign from any other source. By forgoing public funds, Obama was permitted to raise any amount of money he could. In October alone, he raised $160 million, twice what McCain could spend.
Any money donated to the McCain campaign following the convention had to be turned over to the RNC. The RNC was permitted to raise as much money as it could and had roughly $120 million on hand at the end of the convention. The drawback is that only a very small portion of that money can be coordinated between the national party and the candidate, so in effect, McCain was locked in at $84 million and could raise no more. Likewise, the DNC could raise unlimited sums as well.
It's a political axiom that Democrats always outspend Republicans in presidential campaigns. Along with the free advertising they get from the sycophant media, it's a wonder why Republicans ever win elections. Even John Kerry said back in 2004 that the media was worth 15% to him. That 15% extra still wasn't enough to unseat President Bush. Imagine if the media were actually unbiased. Then Democrats would never win any elections in this right-of-center country.
Obama had originally promised he would take public financing for the general election, but reneged on his promise when he figured it would give him a significant advantage over McCain. McCain, knowing he would be outspent tremendously, refused to break his promise to take public financing and was hamstrung for it, knowing Obama would blow him away in terms of spending power.
Federal election law also requires all donations above $200 to be reported publicly for anyone to see while any smaller amounts can be hidden from disclosure. McCain, well known as an advocate for campaign finance reform and being the co-author of McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, has disclosed ALL of his donations, including those not required by law. Obama, OTOH, has kept his donations hidden whenever possible. It was also reported just last week that Obama's campaign was accepting donations from pre-paid anonymous debit/credit cards.
And yes, America's super-rich are mostly liberal Democrats, as are those on Wall Street. I don't know why people find that strange even though the stereotype is that rich people are all Republicans. They certainly aren't by any stretch. Most of the CEO's I have ever heard of are Democrats with notable exceptions like Carla Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and Herman Cain of Godfather's Pizza. The CEO and Chairman of the company I work for are big-time Democrats, billionaires both. Most of the super-rich on the Forbes list are Democrats, including Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet. Just looking at Congress, the richest people in the House and Senate are invariably Democrats with only a few exceptions.
Those who are Republican leaders tend to be rather poor in comparison. Ex-Speakers Dennis Hastert and Newt Gingrich, for instance, were a college basketball coach and history professor, respectively, who made very little money. Ex-majority leaders Dick Armey and Tom DeLay were also poor by comparison, with Armey being an economics professor and DeLay being an exterminator. Meanwhile, we have the ultra-rich Diane Feinstein, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and Herb Kohl (of Kohler faucets fame). Ex-Majority Leader Bill Frist was a rare, rich Republican. He was pretty wealthy after being one the foremost heart surgeons in the country, ironically having saved the life of Colonel David Petraeus before either of them were known in political circles after Petraeus had been accidentally shot and nearly killed in a training accident in Tennessee.
The richest presidents of the last hundred years were mostly Democrats with the exception of naval officer and peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter. Carter, along with Reagan, were the two poorest presidents of the last century. The richest were John F. Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson.
Why are the ultra-rich so liberal? There are a number of theories, but none I could prove. I have my ideas related to elitism and old money. "Country Club Republicans" are also rather liberal, with the likes of Gerald Ford and George HW Bush. Those guys tended to be very rich old money, not self-made like Bill Frist or Senator Tom Coburn, another doctor. Keep in mind the liberal Gerald Ford appointed the most liberal member of the current Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens. Poorer ones like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush tended to be more conservative.
The fact that the very rich tend to be liberal also explains why Democrats tend to raise money primarily from very large donations while Republicans tend to get most of their money from small donations and why the Democrats always have a financial edge.
