That's different than the amount spent, of course. Smart campaigns don't spend every dollar as it comes in -- or, at least, they don't do that at first. So the figures for how much has been spent are slightly different.

Those figures are interesting because they offer a better look at what a campaign is doing in the moment. Fundraising facilitates spending, of course, but it's spending that more directly generates votes. Which led us to wonder who's been doing the best job at converting spending into votes. Or, put another way: Who has spent the least for each vote that he or she has received.

AD

AD

To figure that out, we compared expenditure totals to data about the number of votes cast for each candidate as tallied by U.S. Election Atlas. We came up with three figures: 1) Overall spending versus the overall vote, 2) spending in February versus votes that month, and 3) spending in March versus votes that month. None of these is a perfect reflection of the link between spending and votes -- the first, for example, includes votes this month -- but it at least allows us to compare the candidates.

So:

(Notice that the numbers for February are much larger than those for March. Do you know why? The answer is at the bottom of this article.)

Ben Carson, who is no longer running, spent the most per vote overall. Why? Because he spent a gigantic amount of money fundraising, and then didn't do well in the voting. Big spending, few votes.

AD

AD

John Kasich has spent the least per vote of all of the Republicans, mostly because he didn't spend much and also didn't get many votes (relatively speaking). For example, he still trails Marco Rubio's vote total, despite having been in the race for weeks longer. Little spending, not many votes.

Donald Trump has also gotten a good price for his votes. He's spent a lot more than Kasich, but also gotten a lot more votes. Lots of spending, lots of votes.

The Democratic side, though, is perhaps more interesting.

Overall, Bernie Sanders has spent more than Hillary Clinton per vote, doing so by wide margins in February and March. There are three very clear reasons for this. The first is that Sanders has consistently raised more money than Clinton in 2016. The second is that Clinton has gotten a lot more votes.

AD

AD

The third is that Clinton's spending is bolstered by outside groups. If you compare total spending on behalf of the candidates with the number of votes each has received, the gap between the two closes. Clinton and groups supporting her have raised $24.91 for each vote she's received. Sanders and groups supporting him have raised $23.83. That's raised, not spent. But it helps explain part of the gap between the two Democrats.

You'll notice that there's not a super-clear link between spending and outcome (thanks largely to the ratios explained above). The most instructive candidates here are Trump and Carson, the former for not having to spend very much to dominate the race and the latter for having blown huge amounts of money to end up as a surrogate for Trump.

We'll also note that, for all of the talk of money in politics, Sanders (whose money is mostly small donors) has given Clinton an unexpected challenge, outspending her campaign and essentially tying her in total-raised-per-vote including outside groups. And the Republican side is led by a guy who has spent less than anyone listed above besides Kasich.

Why are February's numbers so much bigger than March's?