Making Sense of Campaign Fund-Raising Totals It has become a ritual every four weeks - the moment when the presidential campaigns reveal how much cash they hauled in over the previous month. On Monday, President Obama's campaign trumpeted its number: $45 million for the month of February. Mitt Romney's quickly followed with his take: $11.5 million. Rick Santorum collected $9 million. Ron Paul raised about $3.3 million. O.K., but here's a question: Is that a lot? In the past, one might compare the totals to previous years and previous candidates to get a sense of how the current crop of contenders are stacking up financially. But in a new era of "super PACs," unlimited corporate giving and economic distress, it's hard to find another moment in history that's comparable. Without that comparison, the public is left without much context to help them understand the fund-raising reports. To make matters worse, the candidates each spin the numbers to their own benefit, making it tough to know what's really true. For example, Mr. Obama's campaign has been eager to portray its fund-raising as somewhat lacking in recent weeks. Jim Messina, the campaign manager, has gone out of his way to say that he's worried about the pace of donations from a Democratic base that just assumes the money will keep rolling in. "They're waiting to donate until we have a clear opponent," he wrote in a recent e-mail to supporters. There's too much at stake, and not enough time, to be doing that. So, $45 million isn't a lot? Here are some things to consider as one ponders that question. SUPER PACS: The biggest development that makes it difficult to assess presidential fund-raising is the presence of so-called super PACs, which did not exist in a presidential campaign before this election cycle. And the difference they make is huge. If a candidate like Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney sees a reduction in donations to his campaign, it might be a reflection of a lack of enthusiasm. Or it could simply be donors deciding that they'd rather donate - often anonymously - to the super PAC supporting that candidate. The super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, Restore Our Freedom, has been vacuuming up money from big-dollar donors for a year now - and has been spending it in an effort to get him the nomination. Last month, Mr. Obama's campaign finally blessed the super PAC backing him, Priorities U.S.A. Action, which could lead to some siphoning off of his wealthy donors. In February 2008, Mr. Obama raised $56 million during his battle with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. That's $11 million more than his 2012 total for that month, but it's hard to know whether the lower number this year is because donors might be waiting to give to a super PAC down the road, have soured on Mr. Obama or are just holding on to their money until later in the process. And then there are the outside groups like American Crossroads, the super PAC headed by Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's former adviser, who has pledged to raise $200 million to help defeat Mr. Obama. If he makes good on that promise, the president's financial advantage over his Republican opponent might not be as great as it would otherwise seem. INCUMBENCY: Another challenge when it comes to comparing fund-raising numbers is that Mr. Obama now occupies the White House. That makes it difficult to compare his tally this time around to the amount he raised in 2008. Normally, being president makes it easier to raise money. But Mr. Obama has angered some of his wealthy supporters - like bankers, hedge fund managers and some in Hollywood - by pushing policies they don't like. That appears to have affected his financial support in those areas. And the White House argues that because Mr. Obama does not have a primary opponent in this election, the fund-raising will be different. They say that Republican attempts to warn of a $1 billion Obama reelection campaign is both wrong and dangerous for Democratic enthusiasm. One option would be to compare Mr. Obama's fund-raising to that of George W. Bush's toward the end of his first term. By that measure, Mr. Obama trounced Mr. Bush, who raised just $13.7 million in February 2004. But that's deceiving, because much of Mr. Obama's $45 million was for the Democratic National Committee, and current laws allow Mr. Obama to raise such money in $30,000 chunks - something that was not legal eight years ago. THE ECONOMY: It's hard to know how much to make of the economic downturn. The economy was roaring in 2004, and in early 2008 it had not yet cratered. So it's possible that economic uncertainty is holding back some donors who might otherwise have given to the candidates. That should affect the Republican candidates and Mr. Obama. But it does make it even harder to compare the current fund-raising numbers to those in past elections. BURN RATE: And finally, it's hard to judge how the candidates are doing financially because we know so little about how they spend the money they raise. Some Republicans have noted, for example, that Mr. Obama's campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars, burning through their cash quickly and leaving the president - perhaps - with less of a financial advantage than it might appear. But that depends on how Mr. Obama is spending that money. If he's frittering it away on high-priced consultants and paying a lot to raise every dollar, Mr. Obama could struggle later on. If he's using the money to build a 50-state campaign infrastructure at a time when Republicans are arguing among themselves, it would probably be money well spent. That's certainly what Mr. Obama's campaign argues. Ben LaBolt, a spokesman, said that "while the funds the Republicans are raising are being spent carpet-bombing each other on the air, we are making a down payment on our efforts to win in November by building the largest grassroots campaign in history."