Exposing Hillary So She Won't Get Elected

Hillary May Be Winning, But Bernie’s Still Raking In The Dough

Despite pulling far ahead in the delegate count, Hillary is no match for Bernie Sanders’ fundraising ability.

For the second month in a row, Sanders outraised Hillary among small donors to the tune of $14 million.

So far, Bernie has received $77 million from contributors giving less than $200, while Hillary has only raised $32 million from the same group, Vox is reporting.

Sanders’s strength with these kinds of donors has been clear for months. But most campaign finance experts say they have been awed by the durability of his fundraising prowess: Sanders has now received more in small contributions than even Barack Obama had at this point in 2008, according to Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute.

Clinton has drawn the vast sum of her money from people giving the maximum of $2,700. But whereas those donors are prohibited from giving more to her this primary cycle, Sanders can return again and again to most of the 5 million people who have filled his coffers.

“This money is just bubbling up from everywhere,” says Bob Biersack, a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics, “and there’s nothing that would cause it to stop.”

In the short term, Sanders’s fundraising haul means he’ll have enough money in the bank to sustain a primary challenge against Clinton all the way to the Democratic National Convention, regardless of how far behind he is in the delegate count.

“You have to have enough funding to continue to be a visible campaign, with people and staff on the ground,” Biersack said. “Sanders raised an incredible amount in February. He will have enough resources.”

That’s going to be particularly important for Sanders’s search for delegates in bigger states, like Pennsylvania and New York, where it will be crucial to have well-staffed ground games, according to Biersack.

Of course, the Vermont senator remains an underdog in the race overall. And while he raised more money in February than Clinton, he also spent more — $40 million to Clinton’s $34 million, according to the Washington Post.