Comparison of Trump vs. Clinton Campaign Spending

President-Elect Donald Trump spent about half of what Hillary did in this election, and he whooped her good.

He spent a third of what Obama spent (as an incumbent in 2012).

Trump hasn’t been in office a minute and he’s already proven he’s geometrically more fiscally responsible than Clinton or Obama.

Estimate project that Trump generated $5 Billion in free media coverage. It wasn’t all good, but he made lots of sow’s ears into silk purses.

From the Federalist Papers:

Relying heavily on an unorthodox mix of social media, unfiltered rhetoric, and a knack for winning free TV time, the New York real estate magnate likely spent less than $5 per vote during his insurgent White House bid, about half what Clinton paid, according to a Reuters analysis of campaign finance records and voting data. Those figures assume the candidates spent all the funds they raised.

Trump’s cost-effective win has upended prevailing concepts about the influence of money in American politics and raised the question of whether a lean, media-savvy campaign can become the new model for winning office in the United States.

This proves what we already know. A smart, proven businessman is more financially-savvy than a politician.

As Zero Hedge pointed out, not only did Trump spend much less, he also contributed a lot of his own money. In other words, you are much more responsible when it’s your money.

Keep in mind that the figures mentioned don’t include Clinton’s Super PACs; they outspent Trump’s as well.

Further, Donald Trump won the presidency November 8th despite losing the fundraising battle to Hillary Clinton by over $380 million, according to

Though he raised less than Clinton, President-Elect Trump did especially well with individual contributions and smaller ones, raising more than $105.3 million and $67.6 million, respectively. Clinton would have killed for the latter figure, as that showcased grassroots support, which Clinton simply couldn’t garner.

And Trump was smart about where he put his money.

“He actually really has scoffed at some of the traditional campaign investments that you see campaigns making over the years,” said Matea Gold of The Washington Post. Trump’s lack of spending on television ads (only $4.8 million vs. Clinton’s $108 million) reflects his belief that the coverage gained through earned media and social media is sufficient.

Then there was the infamous ground game of Hillary Clinton. We were told that Clinton’s ground game would defeat Trump. This was said of Ted Cruz’s ground game in the primaries.

Trump relied on the national party for local campaigning rather than paid staff. All in all, Clinton had 705 paid staffers while Trump had only 82.

Trump pursued a lean financial strategy.  Hillary went heavy on the traditional campaigning model including $100s of millions spent on TV, radio ads and $40 million on high-priced strategists.

Trump made his self-funding a selling point early in his campaign as he fended off 16 Republican rivals for the party nomination, arguing that by eschewing big donors he wasn’t beholden to special interests.

Hillary also benefited from Super PACs that raised money and spent unlimited amounts but couldn’t coordinate directly (yeah, right) with the campaign. More than a dozen elites, including hedge fund magnate Donald Sussman and global financier George Soros, wrote multi-million checks to Priorities USA, the primary PAC supporting her campaign.

In the end, Trump locked down the first win of his mere 17-month old political career with 289 electoral votes to Clinton’s 218. The Trump campaign appears to have spent its’ money wisely, heralding positivity for our country.

On time, under budget!


Back to top button