Yes, we’ve run several critical items on presidential fundraising lately (disclaimer), but this added bit seemed worthy of note:
…More than half of the Edwards donors who listed their occupations said they are attorneys, and they have given seven times more than any other profession, according to an Associated Press analysis of campaign finance data. …
In the first six months of the year, Edwards raised $23 million. But without the roughly $7 million collected from donors identified as attorneys, his numbers would fall closer to that of lower-tier candidates, such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd.
It should be noted that “donors identified as attorneys” is a term of art. Many donations from, e.g., lawyers’ family members or persons whose livelihood derives from litigation support services will not be so identified. Candidates Clinton and Obama have raised about one-sixth of their funds from donors identified as attorneys. (Mike Baker, “Attorneys still bankroll Edwards effort”, AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Aug. 1). More on Edwards’ fund-raising here, here, here, here, here, etc.
P.S. I see the Times is also tackling the subject today: Leslie Wayne, “Lawyers’ Dollars? Not Just to Edwards”, New York Times, Aug. 9. (& welcome readers of Prof. Bainbridge, guestblogging at Andrew Sullivan’s).
2 Comments
Surprise, Surprise! As long as you’re opposed to tort reform the funds will just keep on rolling in.
I think it is a bit unfair to John Edwards to suggest that none of the trial lawyer money should be counted. After all as the posting notes Hillary and Barack raised about 1/6th of their money from trial lawyers.
If we assume that Edwards were to rake in trial lawyer dough at the same rate as these two (one-sixth of the total rather than one-third), that would leave him with about $18 – $19 million which would keep him out of the Richardson class.