The original Trump version of the Mr. Political Clean storyline was his promise to frustrated Americans that he would self-fund his campaign for President, as he is so fabulously wealthy and not beholden. He didn’t need or want any financial assistance to run for office as a public service for his country. So, he could never be bought, influenced or compromised in his mission to make America Great Again (except by himself). Unlike the typical politicians who are basically servants at the behest of rich donors, including a number of elected Republican leaders in Congress.
This boast had a powerful narcotic effect on disgruntled middle class voters who suspect politics as usual.
Trump’s actual business ventures are essentially all privately held and thus evade the measure of public scrutiny and regulation attached to a publicly traded corporation. Trump is free to embellish, exaggerate, and puff up his private wealth and business performance with no organized scrutiny or oversight.
For the first time, in a long time, his public claims about donations to his political campaign by ordinary Americans are subject to disclosure and verification by the independent regulatory agency, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), established in 1975.
Willie Sutton and Campaign Finance
As Willie Sutton, the famous American bank robber and prison escape artist from the 1930s, for whom Sutton’s Law* is named, is reputed to have said to a reporter:
In a famous apocryphal story, Sutton was asked by reporter Mitch Ohnstad why he robbed banks. According to Ohnstad, he replied, “Because that’s where the money is.” The quote evolved into Sutton’s law, which is often invoked to medical students as a metaphor for focusing a workup on the most likely diagnosis, rather than wasting time and money investigating every conceivable possibility.
In his autobiography, Sutton denied originating the pithy rejoinder:
The irony of using a bank robber’s maxim as an instrument for teaching medicine is compounded, I will now confess, by the fact that I never said it. The credit belongs to some enterprising reporter who apparently felt a need to fill out his copy. I can’t even remember where I first read it. It just seemed to appear one day, and then it was everywhere.
If anybody had asked me, I’d have probably said it. That’s what almost anybody would say … it couldn’t be more obvious.
Or could it?
Why did I rob banks? Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was inside a bank, robbing it, than at any other time in my life. I enjoyed everything about it so much that one or two weeks later I’d be out looking for the next job. But to me the money was the chips, that’s all.
Instead of relying on Trump’s self-proclaimed bragging, incomplete teases and fervent assurances, we can instead refer to the legally required periodic filings with the FEC, to test his financial progress. The documents required of all candidates for federal office are filed under oath. False or misleading information subjects the campaign filer to an array of possible penalties, civil and criminal, under provisions of U.S. election law. Only the stout of heart would consciously try to fugaboo the FEC reporting system.
FEC campaign reports, such as Form 3P, provide a wealth of detail, though they are not perfect, and there is an unfortunate delay in certain time deadlines. Examination of campaign financial irregularities is somewhat delayed, and normally takes place only after the fact, but this system is a vast improvement over the campaign finance jungle of the 1960’ds and early 1970s.
Trump’s personal statements and campaign press releases declare what a stud fund raiser he is, and how well his campaign is doing, even as the general election heats up to its climax.
Let’s follow Sutton’s sage (if apocryphal) advice.
The FEC website makes the most pertinent overall campaign financial reports, including the FEC Form 3Ps available on-line without charge. This is an another enormous information support for democracy in America by allowing ordinary interested citizens to follow along and see where the money trail droppings lead to. A golden example of valuable tax dollars at work for the common good.
Based on a review of the Monthly Trump campaign official filings from the earliest start of his campaign in April 2015 until the latest filing made on October 27, 2016 (through October 19), below is a basic summary chart for Trump’s entire presidential campaign fund raising to date.
Where the Money Comes From
The chart has been divided for our purposes into the Primary Election phase (from April 2015 until the end of June 2016), and the General Election phase (July 2016 and the Republican Convention nomination until the present). Four basic sets of Trump campaign certified figures are provided, along with the time frame covered for each number.
Individual contribution to a campaign are classified as either Listed or Unlisted. Ordinary citizens generally make Unlisted contributions, that is the total of all their gifts is a sum less than $200 in total. If a person gives a single contribution more than $200 at one time, it must be separately itemized by donor, occupation, etc. The same rule applies if a small donor gives several times and the combined total exceeds $200. In that case, all the contributions of that person are added together as one, and must be reported as a Listed contribution, subject to greater information disclosure.
So, the critical amount for small donors, the heart of the people, is represented by the Unlisted Category of Individual Contributions. Similarly, direct cash donations by the candidate him or herself are given as a separately category, whatever the size of the donation, even into the millions. The third category in our chart is the combined total of all individual contributions for a given time period, whether from small donors, the candidate’s own pockets, or others. Others in this context would generally mean higher dollar gifts from wealthier folks, subject to the maximum allowable individual limits specified in the campaign laws.
The final category in our abbreviated chart consists of loans provided to the campaign directly from or guaranteed by the candidate personally. This category is often not of great significance, but takes on a special meaning for Trump’s campaign.
What are the Sutton’s Law Results for Trump’s 2016 Campaign
Several items stand out on visual inspection. During the primary campaign, Trump indeed was a potent financial driver for his own campaign, providing almost $50 million dollars in funding, as long as you count the $47.5 million of that amount he provided as loans with a payback option to himself. Trump did not in fact convert these loans to an actual campaign donation until his July 2016 filing report, made on August 20th, after the convention and nomination were secured. He did however fulfill this implied promise of foregoing loan payback.
Of the $39 million in cash received by the campaign through June 30th, small donors (regular folks) provided $24.5 million compared to Trump’s actual cash (unhedged) donations of $2.5 million. The small donors out supported Trump by 10:1 in direct cash donations. Further, the small donors beat the large donors, $24.5 to $12 million. Counting all sources, the small dollar folks provided 28% of all Trump’s campaign money, even after including his big loans.
So, for the primary phase Trump was somewhat good to his word to be self-funding at 58% of funds raised. Not exactly a sterling truth telling performance, but not a terrible lie either.
Now let’s look at the more important and current General Election phase (July– October) of the campaign money trail. The first thing that stands out is that there are no more Trump loans. He has gone to a full direct cash contribution basis, so the fourth category of our chart after June 2016 is goose eggs.
The small donors have continued to step up for Trump by donating $43 million, at the rate of better than $10 million per month. Trump, however, seems to have lost enthusiasm for his own campaign, as he remained stuck as a steady $2 million per month until October, when he gave essentially nothing ($30 thousand)during the entire reporting period from October 1 to October 19. So the small donors were outpacing him at a steady 5:1 ratio for the General Election phase until October, when they gave (and he didn’t) at the ratio of 278:1. How embarrassing is that for such a wealthy guy? When the going gets tough….
Perhaps Trump forgot that the October report by law must be filed early (by October 27) compared to the usual deadline of 20 days into the next month. Oops. In any case, as news hit the street of his pitiful self assessment, he quickly announced today (Friday) that he was going to donate $10 million immediately to his campaign. No proof, but a promise that may get last during the final two weeks, since there are no more official reports required until after the election, so no one can check up on his promised delivery. He’s so smart. Not to mention the diminished effect such last gasp money has to affect election outcomes, compared to earlier, timely investments.
Leaving the last minute PR rescue donation aside, during the General Election phase Trump’s small donors gave $37 million more to his campaign than he did. They also continued to outshine the big dollar Republicans by giving $43 million versus $26 million, about 70% more during this period.
One irritating feature of these comparisons is that, over the course of the campaign, Trump has managed to pull off an unprecedented feat. He has reimbursed himself more than $8 million dollars for his private jet, office rent, event rentals at Trump hotels and golf courses, and food and catering services by his companies. This has never been attempted on such a scale by any other Presidential candidate in 240 years of American political history. An amazing, historic Trump first.
In practice this means that during the General Election phase of his campaign, Trump has actually net contributed less than zero to his campaign, and in fact has made a better than $2 million score at his small donors’ expense. What a financial stud thus guy is, manipulating the finance laws for his personal profit. And we all know that the Trump jet, Trump Tower office rents, and Trump Hotels room rates are the industry economy price leaders, in terms of maximum bang for the travel buck, nationwide.
Overall, in the General Election phase, the small dollar contributors provided 35% of all Trump’s campaign money. Trump, on the other hand, gave 5%. In what should be the most expensive part of the campaign, his regular folks outspent Trump 7:1. It is as if his original personal financial commitment fell off a cliff. This is a faithless performance on his part.
Perhaps the final insult for true believers in Trump’s goodness, who have had such confidence in his love of country, is that for the entire campaign, up to this very minute, small donors have given $67.5 million, and Trump has donated (including every cent of his loans) only $56 million. Ordinary, non-wealthy folks have thus given $12.5 million more to the movement than their billionaire Pied Piper Leader in Chief. What a scam artist.
Only the richest Republicans, who have significantly backed off donating to Trump’s campaign in 2016 compared to their generous support of the party’s nominated candidate in 2012, figured Trump’s deal out in time to keep their money safely out of his grasping hands.
Sutton’s Law Perspective
None of this would matter very much, except from a moral perspective, if Trump’s overall campaign fund raising operation were hugely successful. It is not. In virtually every category: total dollars, Super PAC dollars, big donor dollars, Trump is lagging far behind the competition.
He has not pumped big money into the RNC campaign apparatus for get out the vote efforts as expected, so he is in another financial hole. He has no substantial ground game of his own, neglecting to fund one going back for more than a year, against the advice of his professional staff. He promised to spend $!00 million in TV ads from September 26 onwards in the last 6 weeks of the campaign, and has failed to deliver there as well. Another Broken Promise made to his supporters.
For the last few weeks, as a buzz of financial criticism has risen from fellow Republicans and observers, Trump keeps promising he will spend whatever it takes, at least $100 million on his campaign. Trump does like large round numbers. $100 million for this, $100 million for that, $10 billion in net worth, etc.
As of today, his personal campaign investment is at $56 million, before deducting his $8 million personal claw back, so his real investment is just about $48 million. This is less than half of what he has promised in public, on camera, repeatedly. With just two weeks left in the campaign, and 13 weeks gone (87%) since the convention, he is failing badly.
The bright lights of publicity shining inside the Trump Campaign Money Vaults show the steel racks are badly depleted of cash on all sides, and the Trump shelves are down to bare metal.
Broken financial promise after broken promise of riches in store. Willie Sutton would not be pleased.
Trump’s honest, hard working small dollar donors who gave in good faith should be boiling mad, and screaming for the Sheriff.
Trump convinced conservative folks to open their wallets and purses to give generously for a public spirited cause they believe in to make America better. For them to watch Trump finagle a profit only for himself of nearly $10 million from that money is a bitter pill indeed.
That’s almost a 15% skim off the top of their hard earned donations. Those are crooked Las Vegas casino type numbers. It might be legal, but it is deceptive and dishonest to the core, and Trump’s small donors know it deep in their bones. They’re getting rolled in public.
Election Day is November 8th. Please go Vote. Vote early, if you can. Talk to your neighbors and encourage them to Vote too.
* I prefer an alternate medical version of this sound advice, from an earlier day. Medical students and residents were often advised, “When you hear hoof beats, don’t think of zebras.”
This conveys the same valuable cautionary principle in medicine, without injecting a potential pecuniary element. I think Sutton’s Law should be applied generally in situations where money is, in fact, the main object of inquiry, like bank robbery, influence peddling, and campaign finance disclosures, not proper medical diagnosis and treatment.