Donald Trump leads with $1.7B assets and $169M of cash among 2020 election candidates, says Wallethub report
American politics had a significant day on March 3 when the country went to 'Super Tuesday' and witnessed primaries/ caucuses in 14 states besides American Samoa. Roughly 40 percent of the US voters voted on the day when over 1,300 delegates were up for the grabs. It was a super successful day for former vice president Joe Biden as he won 10 states while Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders found himself relegated to the second position as he could win only four.
The contest is still close with Biden leading Sanders by around 50 delegates.
Personal finance website WalletHub recently released its report on the presidential candidate personal finance and it touched upon the financial exposures of both parties’ leading candidates. It also gave interesting insights into how the average candidate’s savings compared to that of an average American and which candidates earned how much from speaking.
According to the WalletHub analysis of financial disclosures and campaign spending data received from candidates in the 2016 and 2020 election years, it costs an average of $358 million to run for the post of the American president. In 2012, former President Barack Obama’s campaign and affiliates invested a whopping $1.14 billion in his re-election bid. President Donald Trump and his affiliates spent nearly $440 million in the 2016 election.
This year, Democratic candidates spent more than $726 million for their campaign. Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg spent hundreds of millions in only 16 weeks of his campaign and then dropped out after a poor show on Super Tuesday when he could win only American Samoa.
According to the WalletHub report, the average candidate’s assets amount to $208.5 million whereas the average assets for the median American are $29,410. The average candidate’s cash savings are $16 million while it is less than $1,000 for most Americans.
Bill Weld is second-most prosperous after Donald Trump
President Trump leads the cash game with a reserve of $169 million. Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts who has not given up his Quixotic challenging Trump in the primaries even though he has only one delegate as against the president’s 859, is the second in terms of cash with a reserve of $1.13 million. In terms of assets, too, Trump leads the fray with $1.7 billion and Weld is second with $47 million in assets.
Democratic frontrunner Biden’s average speaking fee is $127,760 since 2018 with the biggest paydays coming from Drew University ($190,000) and Lake Michigan College ($182,679). His overall earnings from speeches are $5.2 million, nearly a million of which came from events organized by post-secondary educational bodies.
Other finds saw Trump owning five personal real-estate properties worth over $122 million while $391k is the royalty revenue that Sanders’ 2018 book ‘Where We Go From Here’ generated.
Former candidate Amy Klobuchar, a senator from Minnesota, and Elizabeth Warren, a senator from Massachusetts who is having a disappointing primary run, have no liabilities listed on their financial disclosures which means they don’t have any debt declared.
What experts said on presidential candidates' finances
WalletHub also spoke to experts on the presidential candidates’ finances.
When asked about the impact a presidential candidate’s past financial success, or lack thereof, have on his/her candidacy, Richardson Dilworth, Professor of Politics and Head of the Department of Politics at Drexel University, Philadelphia, said it has a positive impact. “I imagine that past financial success has a positive impact on someone’s candidacy for president of the United States in the sense that at least some voters would view it as a positive attribute, and ostensibly the candidate would have more resources to devote to their campaign,” he said.
Dilworth, who spoke in favor of the candidates releasing their tax returns and medical records, was also asked whether a poor or rich man would make a better president. “I don’t think we’ve ever had anyone make a serious run for president who was actually poor. If all else were indeed equal I don’t think the financial condition of the candidate would determine whether they were a good or bad president – and being a “better” president is a pretty subjective judgment,” he said.
Drew Landry, Assistant Professor of Government, South Plains College, had to say this on the impact that a presidential candidate’s past financial success or failure on the candidacy: “It should impact one’s chances so voters can see his/her current and/or past business dealings. What their real net worth is; how much they paid in taxes; how many houses they own; etc. It should play a decisive role if a candidate took part in shady business practices and be part of a national discussion. Voters should know that information from presidential – all – candidates.”
He, however, refused to acknowledge that financial conditions of a president make any difference and is something subjective.