Michelle Obama reaches out to the crowd after speaking at a Seattle fundraiser July 17. 2008 campaign costliest in U.S. history

The 2008 campaign was the costliest in history, with a record-shattering $5.3 billion in spending by candidates, political parties and interest groups on the congressional and presidential races.

That sum marks a 27 percent increase over the $4.2 billion spent on the 2004 campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiled the figures.


The amount spent on the presidential race alone was $2.4 billion when all candidates and related expenses are included, the center found.

The party presidential nominees – Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain – together spent more than $1 billion, also an unprecedented figure.

The inflation in presidential fundraising was due in large measure to Obama’s decision to finance both his primary and general election with private donations. He was on track to raise more than $650 million.

His success has prompted many observers to declare the death of the Watergate-era, taxpayer-supported presidential financing program.

Those predictions, however, may not unfold as expected.

Clearly, no serious candidate will rely on the public funding system during the primary phase of future presidential campaigns. The 2008 race marked the second time the leading contenders shunned the program during the nomination fights.

But the general election kitty for public financing – at $85 million this year – could still have appeal for future candidates simply because Obama’s performance will be difficult, if not impossible, for many candidates to match.

For evidence, just comb through this year’s presidential roster.

The season started with crowded fields in both party primaries. In the end, however, only four candidates could compete financially outside the public funding system.

They were: Democrats Obama, the first serious African-American candidate, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first serious female candidate; and Republicans Ron Paul, the lone anti-war candidate in the GOP field, and Mitt Romney, a multi-millionaire who sank about $45 million of his own money into the race.

McCain stayed out of the system, but that was only because he clinched the nomination at the moment he went broke. He then struggled to refill his coffers in the spring in order to defend himself in the summer months leading up to the convention.

The small number of candidates who had success outside of the public financing system suggests it may require a unique candidate, or one with a unique and compelling message. Filthy rich could work, too.

“The false reasoning is Obama is necessarily the new model,” said Anthony Corrado, a campaign finance expert.

“He had a perfect environment. He had a unique candidacy. He was an inspirational figure who already had celebrity status entering the race,” Corrado said. “And he had an extraordinary Democratic primary that kept high level of competition and interest for months, which spurred fundraising and the development of his base and he showed unique appeal to the young and social networking.”

“Will the next presidential nominee be able to tap into all of these facets?” he asked. “Probably not.”

The general election financing could also remain attractive because it becomes a funding floor, not a ceiling. McCain demonstrated that this cycle. He participated in the public financing system and collected his $85 million allotment.

Then, the Arizona senator helped the Republican National Committee raise millions more that were spent running ads for his campaign and financing his voter turnout operation.

That model may be more achievable for future candidates than Obama’s accomplishments.

Obama’s fundraising apparatus also was unique in that it attracted more than 3 million donors, the vast majority of whom never gave him more than a total of $250.

But the Illinois senator also employed a more expansive big-donor base than his predecessors.

According to White House for Sale, a nonpartisan group that tracks political giving, Obama had 605 bundlers, or donors who collect money from friends and associates and bundle them together. Four years ago, Democrat John F. Kerry had 588 bundlers and, in 2000, Al Gore had none.

Republican bundling also grew this cycle.

McCain had 851 bundlers working for his campaign, compared to 557 who raised money for the Bush-Cheney re-election committee in 2004. George W. Bush is largely credited with institutionalizing the role of bundlers in 2000, when he recruited a then unprecedented 555 surrogate fundraisers.

Despite Obama’s overall fundraising advantage, a review of spending by the Campaign Finance Institute found that the partisan camps had roughly the same amount of money to spend in the final weeks of the campaign.

That balance, however, came after Obama and the Democratic National Committee spent roughly twice as much as McCain and the RNC in the first two weeks of the month.

In early October, Obama and the DNC disbursed $132 million, including $16 million in transfers to state parties, in the first two weeks of October. During the same period, McCain and the RNC spent $67.6 million, the institute found.

The financial dominance of the Obama campaign at the presidential level was mirrored by Democrats in the congressional races.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics study, House and Senate candidates raised a combined $1.5 billion. Democrats were on track to bank 59 percent of that money, a significant shift from 2006 when the parties’ fundraising was roughly equal.

“The Republican Party’s long-time lead in the campaign finance game has been erased in this election due to the Democrats’ control of the congressional agenda and their side’s more skillful use of online fundraising,” said the center’s director, Sheila Krumholz.

One other notable campaign finance surprise in the 2008 campaign was the decline of the so-called 527s, the independent groups that ran some of the most negative and effective ads in the 2004 presidential campaign.

As the 2008 campaign came to a close, federally focused 527s had raised $185 million, a significant drop from the $338 million they raised and spent four years ago, according to a Campaign Finance Institute study.

The decline was attributed to several factors, including a Federal Election Commission crackdown on the groups and decisions by both Obama and McCain to discourage their involvement in the presidential campaign.

Consequently, some groups shifted their focus to House and Senate races, diffusing their presence and influence. Others have shifted from the ad wars to the ground game.

Steve Weissman, the author of the report, cautions against writing the groups off for good.

“Although the FEC’s post 2004 enforcement actions against 527s have made them jump through new legal hoops, dampening their appeal somewhat, their strong performance in relation to 2006 indicates that they remain viable and important instruments of political action,” he said.