Photo Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 WASHINGTON — Donna Mae Litowitz, a Miami Beach retiree, likes Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont so much that three months ago she sent his presidential campaign $10,000. His campaign sent back all but $2,700 because it was more than he was allowed to take under federal election law, but she wishes he had kept it all. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 “I like what Sanders stands for, and he says what needs to be said,” said Ms. Litowitz, who gave money in 2008 to Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. “And I don’t like Hillary Clinton.” 
 
 In an election dominated by million-dollar donations to “super PACs,” Ms. Litowitz qualifies in Mr. Sanders’s insurgent campaign as a big donor. Unlike almost all of the other major Democratic and Republican candidates this year, Mr. Sanders has refused to accept support from super PACs, relying instead on supporters like Ms. Litowitz as well as tens of thousands of small donors giving as little as $5 or $10. 
 
 The average donation, according to campaign officials, is $31.30. 
 
 The result is a campaign built on populist issues like income inequality that appears to be drawing even more rank-and-file support than Mr. Obama did in 2008, when he used a network of smaller donors to win the White House. 
 
 About a quarter of Mr. Obama’s donors over the course of that campaign gave a total of $200 or less, according to a study by the Campaign Finance Institute. While direct comparisons are difficult at this early stage in the 2016 race, Mr. Sanders’s small-dollar support appears significantly higher than Mr. Obama’s in 2008, and more than any other candidate this cycle. 
 
 Mr. Sanders has raised more money in gifts of $200 or less than any candidate, Democrat or Republican, an analysis of campaign finance reports shows. A huge chunk of his money — $11.4 million, or about 75 percent of all his contributions — has come from small donations routed through ActBlue, an online site that facilitates contributions to Democrats, records show. 
 
 The influx of support has helped Mr. Sanders build a formidable war chest, with his campaign raising $15.2 million as of the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission in July. Campaign officials say he has raised millions more since then and will far surpass that total this quarter. That still puts him far behind Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising juggernaut, but Mr. Sanders said in an interview that he was unbowed. 
 
 “We will be greatly outspent, yes, but we will raise enough money to wage a winning campaign,” he said. 
 
 Democratic strategists are beginning to take notice. 
 
 “His money is very impressive,” said Bill Burton, a former aide to Mr. Obama who helped found Priorities USA, a super PAC that is now supporting Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the Democratic nomination and has received donations of at least $1 million each from a number of big Democratic donors like Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, George Soros and Haim Saban. 
 
 But Mr. Sanders’s fund-raising strategy will test the prevailing notion in Washington that no candidate can successfully compete on the national stage without tapping into the many millions of dollars that have poured into super PACs since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Super PACs supporting Mrs. Clinton have already raised more than $20 million, records show; on the Republican side, two super PACs backing Jeb Bush raised about $108.5 million. 
 
 Yet when a Vermont legislator, Chris Pearson, offered to set up a super PAC to support the Sanders campaign, Mr. Sanders told him to “kill it,” Mr. Sanders said, because did not want to be beholden to “the millionaires and billionaires.” 
 
 Continue reading the main story First Draft Newsletter Subscribe for updates on the 2016 presidential race, the White House and Congress, delivered to your inbox Monday - Friday. 
 
 Mr. Sanders said that it was “a difficult decision” to opt out of such a powerful and quick way to raise money. In doing so, he said, “we’re giving up millions and millions of dollars, no doubt, but we will sink or swim based on what we get from the middle class of the country.” 
 
 Nor has Mr. Sanders held many of the kind of fund-raisers that presidential candidates traditionally devote much of their time to. He has held only five, and they have been more like political rallies, held at places like a Washington, D.C., brewery and a Seattle tavern, with a contribution of $100 or less sometimes required. 
 
 Jeff Weaver, the campaign manager for Mr. Sanders, said in an interview that “it’s absolutely possible to win without the super PACs.” 
 
 Mr. Weaver said that the campaign had been able to leverage the big turnouts seen at rallies — he estimated the combined crowds at three recent West Coast events at 70,000 — by following up by phone or email seeking donations. 
 
 “The fund-raising from our standpoint is going phenomenally,” Mr. Weaver said. “We’re way ahead of where we thought we would be.” 
 
 Even so, Mr. Sanders in the last quarter raised less than a third as much as Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign reported contributions of $47.5 million in the spring quarter. 
 
 But Mr. Sanders and his aides say they can blunt the effect of Mrs. Clinton’s financial advantage by running a more frugal campaign, even as they build campaign operations in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. 
 
 So far, the more-with-less approach is holding up. 
 
 In his filings to the election commission, Mr. Sanders reported spending only about $3 million — or less than 20 percent of the money he had raised. Mrs. Clinton, in comparison, reported spending at about twice that rate, or about $18.7 million — nearly 39 percent of her contributions — on things like catering at fund-raisers and slick media productions. (Her campaign asked for approval from the election commission this month to allow donors to pay for their own food, drinks and valet parking at some events.) 
 
 Mr. Sanders was left with $12.1 million in cash on hand at the end of June, and Mrs. Clinton had $28.9 million. 
 
 “When you know you’re not going to raise as much as your opponent, you have to make every dollar count,” Mr. Weaver said. ||||| The Joe Biden who has been reaching out to Democratic operatives and would-be donors for a potential 2016 bid isn’t quite the happy warrior of bygone days. 
 
 Mourning the loss of his eldest son Beau, who succumbed to a brain tumor three months ago, and under intense pressure from the presidential hype he’s helped stoke, Biden is more subdued, grayer and grimly on-task than usual — this while occupying political center stage for the first time since the promising opening days of his doomed 1988 campaign. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 For all the breathless reporting on Biden’s every move and meeting, he is, at core, a 72-year-old man presented with an unexpected, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity at one of the worst times of his life. 
 
 Several people Biden has talked to in the past month say he starts off conversations by conceding that “some days are better than others,” mixing recollections of Beau with logistical questions about mounting a state-by-state challenge to a vulnerable yet still formidable Hillary Clinton. 
 
 “He’s just not himself,” says a longtime friend of Biden’s. “He’s sort of all over the place. He’s engaged but not in that childlike, manic way he usually is. He’s taking it all in and soaking up information, but he’s hard to read. And Joe Biden isn’t usually that hard to read.” 
 
 That isn’t to say Biden won’t decide to run — he clearly sees Clinton’s struggles with her email scandal as an opportunity, and no politician in recent history has proven to be as resilient in the face of personal tragedy. 
 
 To the annoyance of the Clinton campaign, Biden’s allies have strategically leaked his modest, noncommittal doings to the media, which have given otherwise ho-hum confabs with Elizabeth Warren and President Barack Obama’s former counsel Bob Bauer bombshell treatment. (Warren, according to a person with knowledge of the interaction, offered her usual warning against bringing more Wall Street executives into the White House; the talk with Bauer, an old Biden friend who worked with him closely in the White House, was intended to be an informal, personal check-in session that was leaked against the wishes of the participants.) 
 
 But reports that the vice president has all but made up his mind to run are simply not true, according to a half-dozen people in his inner circle interviewed by POLITICO. “He’s not leaning one way or the other,” says one former aide who remains part of the extended Biden political family. 
 
 What he has done is accelerated the pace of his deliberations, making personal overtures to Democratic donors — though Clinton’s team has yet to suffer any significant defections. So far he’s attracted a handful of former Obama supporters who have gravitated to a “Draft Biden” startup, including veteran Florida operative Steve Schale and Jon Cooper, a Long Island businessman who was one of Obama’s top New York fundraisers. 
 
 But he’s behaved more like a staffer than a principal — sounding out potential supporters without striding into the race with a distinct message or specific policy challenge to Clinton. 
 
 “I don’t know what he’s going to do,” said Jim Kreindler, a 2008 Biden fundraiser who is encouraging the vice president to run. “Everybody knows it’s going to be hard to challenge Hillary for money. … But I think he knows that he needs to be positioned to jump in if she really stumbles.” 
 
 As he embarks on a fact-finding project most other candidates completed months ago, Biden’s greatest concern remains his family. He’s especially worried about his wife, Jill, who was hit hard by the death of 46-year-old Beau, who she raised after Biden’s first wife and infant daughter were killed in a car crash in 1972. 
 
 Beau urged his father to run for years, but Jill is deeply skeptical of another run, according to people close to Biden; she re-upped to teach a full-time load of five English classes at Northern Virginia Community College next semester, as first noted by Bloomberg News, not exactly the action of a woman who planned to hit the campaign trail. 
 
 Joe Biden wants to run — he always has. But that doesn’t mean he actually will, and those who have spoken with him say he seems far from making a decision. He’s playing the same wait-and-see game he’s played for the past 18 months, telling potential backers he’ll make a decision as late as early October. Since his 2012 reelection, Biden had opted for inaction over action — he opted not to create a leadership PAC for the 2014 midterms, he balked at forming a presidential super PAC, he didn’t seriously sound out donors until this summer. 
 
 On the other hand, his numbers are too good to ignore. Without even being in the race, he consistently polls in double digits — and narrowly bested Clinton in head-to-head matchups against top Republicans in the key swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Moreover, he’s regarded as much more trustworthy than the former secretary of state, enjoying a 20-point lead over Clinton in that metric among battleground state voters. 
 
 Obama, according to current and former West Wing officials, is more inclined to support Clinton’s candidacy. Despite her woes, he sees her as a more electable candidate and a more effective keeper of his policy legacy. He’s done everything but endorse her already, putting his vast fundraising network in the hands of Clinton’s super PAC allies. Two of Obama’s top White House aides, John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri, are running Clinton’s campaign and report regularly to their old West Wing friends — including the president. 
 
 But Obama has told people around him to give the vice president “space” to make his decision, and urged his staff not to make Biden feel pressured not to run. 
 
 White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday that the president wouldn’t rule out making an endorsement in the primaries — and other West Wing officials told POLITICO that Obama has privately expressed a preference for Clinton as his successor, while keeping up the pretense of being undecided in public. (“I love ’em both,” Obama said on NBC’s “Today” show in February when asked who he would back.) 
 
 Clinton’s camp, hands full with the email controversy and a surprisingly stout challenge from independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, isn’t in a patient mood. Bill Clinton, according to a person who has spoken with the former president in the past couple of weeks, is “very agitated” by the possibility of a Biden candidacy and incensed at the press hype around a possible bid. 
 
 Hillary Clinton, Democrats in her orbit tell POLITICO, is less concerned — and several top Clinton campaign officials have told associates they think a Biden bid would energize what has been a fairly lackluster performance by the candidate thus far. 
 
 Either way, the Clinton campaign is monitoring Biden’s activities closely — and Biden’s small team is acutely sensitive to slights against him, and to the possibility that her operation — including Correct the Record and other Clinton-friendly outside groups — would push anti-Biden opposition research to reporters in order to dissuade the vice president from running. “They better not do that,” said a Biden confidant. “That would bring really out his Irish.” 
 
 People close to Clinton say their boss wouldn’t let them push negative information on Biden even if they wanted to — and it would backfire anyway, considering Biden’s tragic family circumstances. 
 
 Biden’s decision will ultimately come down to convincing his family that embarking on one last long-shot campaign is worth the emotional toll, those close to him say. His staff, small as it is, already seems to be on board: Chief of staff Steve Ricchetti, a onetime Clinton aide, has arranged many of Biden’s recent meetings, and longtime staffer Mike Donilon — who was close to Beau — has been the most enthusiastic proponent of a 2016 bid, according to Democrats with knowledge of the situation. 
 
 Hunter Biden, the vice president’s surviving son, is said to be generally supportive of his father’s wishes, whatever they might be, but not a cheerleader — Biden’s sister Val, long his closest political adviser, is equally ambivalent. Jill Biden will be a hard sell. 
 
 Many of Joe Biden’s friends and family — people who deeply love the man, even if they don’t share his unquenchable presidential ambitions — quietly hoped the vice president would never be forced to decide whether or not to run in 2016. 
 
 Beau Biden had been expected to survive into the fall, according to several people in the vice president’s orbit. Friends who wanted Biden to bow out gracefully prayed the ailing son would rally — and hoped his devoted father would be so focused on his recovery he wouldn’t have time to contemplate a campaign until it was too late. 
 
 But as has happened so often in Biden’s four decades in the public eye, fate intervened, cruelly. 
 
 Experimental treatments to slow the cancer failed, and the former National Guard major and Iraq War veteran — so upright he refused to wear his uniform in political ads — faded quickly. That left his grieving father, who could use Beau’s steadfast support now more than ever, alone to confront one of the most wrenching political decisions of his life. 
 
 “We do not know how long we’ve got here. We don’t know when fate will intervene,” Obama said at Beau Biden’s funeral — words that seem to apply to father as well as son. “We cannot discern God’s plan. What we do know is that with every minute that we’ve got, we can live our lives in a way that takes nothing for granted.” 
 
 Annie Karni contributed to this report. ||||| WASHINGTON (AP) — Jeb Bush raised $13.4 million over the summer for his Republican presidential bid — more than almost any other primary competitor, but far less than political newcomer Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who collected about $20 million during the same time period. 
 
 Esther Alvarado, left, and Maria Anita Monsivaiz, right, hold portraits they created of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton during a campaign event, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2015, in San... (Associated Press) 
 
 Meanwhile, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the two leading Democrats in the 2016 race, each raised more than any of the Republicans between July 1 and Sept. 30. 
 
 One major revelation from the latest batch of presidential fundraising reports, filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission: Donald Trump is no longer a self-funded candidate. The celebrity billionaire who has sat atop GOP polls in recent months raised $3.9 million in the latest fundraising quarter, only $100,000 of which came from his own pocket. That's a drastic shift from his springtime fundraising report, when he loaned his campaign nearly all of the $1.9 million it had. 
 
 Here's what else we learned from the new fundraising reports: 
 
 ___ 
 
 CLINTON, SANDERS RAISE ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT — IN DIFFERENT WAYS 
 
 Clinton's campaign raised $29 million in the three months ending Sept. 30. That's less than what she raised in the early months of her campaign, but more than any previous non-incumbent Democratic presidential primary contestant in the third quarter of the year before Election Day. 
 
 Most of the money came in through dozens of traditional fundraising events, where the price of entry was often the legal maximum donation of $2,700. 
 
 Sanders brought in about $26 million, largely through small contributions collected online. People giving $200 or less accounted for a staggering three-quarters of his money. He continues to show off his fundraising prowess, harvesting more than $2.5 million in new contributions in the hours that followed Tuesday night's Democratic debate. 
 
 "We are doing it the old-fashioned way: 650,000 individual contributions," Sanders said in his closing statement of that appearance, adding: "We are averaging 30 bucks apiece. We would appreciate your help." 
 
 ___ 
 
 CARSON THE EARLY LEADER IN GOP CONTEST 
 
 Lots of Republican voters sent a message in preference polls this summer that they want an outsider as their nominee. That's reflected in how they're giving to the candidates, too. 
 
 Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson posted the best haul of the dozen-plus candidates in the GOP field, with about $20 million. But his campaign also spent heavily, burning through $14 million over the same time period. 
 
 Carson spent most of that money raising money. He ended September with about $11 million in available cash. 
 
 One of Carson's closest fundraising competitors is Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, whose campaign raised $12.2 million in the third quarter and ended the month with $13.5 million in the bank. Although he has been a senator since 2012, Cruz also is running as an outsider, with a focus on the many times he has broken with Senate Republican leadership over issues such as shutting down the government to defund implementation of the Affordable Care Act. 
 
 Former technology executive Carly Fiorina, who has never held elected office, raised $6.8 million for her campaign — four times as much as she collected at the start of her campaign. Her boost came after strong debate performances that also led to a rise in some national preference polls. 
 
 ___ 
 
 LOWER FIGURES FOR OTHERS IN GOP 
 
 Others in the Republican race found the summer months a tough slog for fundraising. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul raised $2.5 million and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio about $6 million. Paul recently devoted time to a separate bid to keep his Senate seat, leading some to question if he's still in the White House race. 
 
 "I wouldn't be doing this dumb-ass livestreaming if I weren't," Paul said in a recent Internet video. "So, yes, I still am running for president. So get over it." 
 
 In a memo to supporters Thursday, the Paul campaign continued to provide assurance that it is "here to stay." The candidate raised almost $1 million in the 12 days after the September debate, the memo says. 
 
 Rubio's campaign argues that it can make its money go the distance because of its extreme frugality. The campaign told top donors that it began October with $11 million socked away, although FEC filings show more than $1 million of that is earmarked for the general election, meaning he can't spend it as he seeks to win the GOP nomination. 
 
 As evidence of its tight ship, Rubio's campaign manager Terry Sullivan has said he must personally approve all expenses over $500. Rubio is also getting a boost from a nonprofit group that doesn't disclose its donors. While the campaign hasn't purchased any television commercials, the group Conservative Solutions Project has already spent millions of dollars on ads. 
 
 ___ 
 
 DROP-OUTS — AND THOSE BARELY HANGING ON 
 
 Weighing on these lower-raising candidates are the fates of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Both dropped out of the 2016 Republican nominating contest for lack of funds. 
 
 Federal reports filed Thursday show Perry raised less than $300,000 between July 1 and Sept. 11, when he ended his campaign. It had about $45,000 left in the bank at the end of last month, FEC documents show. 
 
 Walker, despite having raised $7.4 million in the summer months, quickly burned through the money and dropped out 10 days after Perry. He closed September with less than $1 million in available cash — not enough to cover the nearly 100 employees on his payroll. 
 
 The FEC filings also show that others are quickly running out of cash. 
 
 At the start of this month, former New York Gov. George Pataki had just $13,500 and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore had about $34,000. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee were in better shape — but each had less than $800,000 in cash on hand. 
 
 ___ 
 
 HOTLY ANTICIPATED REPORTS 
 
 New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Ohio Gov. John Kasich both entered the Republican race later than the other candidates, meaning Thursday provided the first look at their fundraising. 
 
 Christie's campaign raised $4.2 million in recent months and had $1.4 million cash on hand at the end of September. Although the haul puts him in the lower tier of Republican fundraisers, Christie played down the importance of money. "We're doing fine," Christie recently said during a swing through New Hampshire. "I'm proud of what we did in the third quarter fundraising, which is always a really difficult quarter given the summer and everything else." 
 
 Kasich raised about $4.4 million and had $2.6 million left to spend as the month began. 
 
 On the Democratic side, though Sanders and Clinton dominated the fundraising race, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley netted almost $1.3 million in new contributions, closing the quarter with $806,000 left. 
 
 ___ 
 
 WHAT WE WON'T LEARN: THE BIGGEST DONORS 
 
 Only the official campaigns face a Thursday fundraising reporting deadline. Their super PAC counterparts can wait until January to disclose their newest financial details and donor names. 
 
 While contributors can give a maximum of $2,700 per election to campaigns, they face no such restrictions with super PACs. Those groups must be legally separate from the campaigns, but are often stacked with a candidate's most trusted aides. 
 
 As of June 30, super PACs and other outside groups tailored to presidential candidates had raised more than three times as much as the candidates themselves. 
 
 ___ 
 
 AP writer Jill Colvin contributed to this report. 
 
 ___ 
 
 Follow Julie Bykowicz on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/bykowicz ||||| Jeb Bush isn't the leading Republican candidate but recent campaign finance data shows he and Hillary Clinton are Wall Street favorites. (Reuters) 
 
 Jeb Bush isn't the leading Republican candidate but recent campaign finance data shows he and Hillary Clinton are Wall Street favorites. (Reuters) 
 
 The Democratic presidential contenders dramatically outpaced their Republican counterparts in the race for campaign cash last quarter, spotlighting how the parties are taking divergent paths in their pursuit of 2016 funding. 
 
 The emphasis by Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders on raising money directly for their campaigns has helped them amass large donor pools critical to generating the estimated $1 billion each party’s candidate will need to raise by Election Day. 
 
 While GOP candidates put an intense focus early in the year on raising huge sums for independent groups, many have had less success in attracting smaller donations that are the lifeblood of campaign operations, campaign finance reports filed Thursday show. 
 
 The risk of the big-money approach was underscored by the modest $13.4 million raised over the summer by former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who earlier this year was expected to be a financial powerhouse. Just $877,000 came from donations of $200 or less. 
 
 After helping scoop up more than $100 million for his allied super PAC before declaring his bid, Bush is now struggling to explain to backers why he is not getting more traction among the party’s rank-and-file. 
 
 View Graphic Explore the largest donors to 2016 presidential candidates 
 
 Two GOP contenders — former Texas governor Rick Perry and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — have already dropped out of the race after running low on cash. 
 
 “You could have this big super PAC, but if you have limited momentum and limited money to keep the campaign going, it’s like the guy at the top of Mount Everest with two broken legs and an extra oxygen tank,” said Republican strategist Matthew Dowd. “You’re living longer, but you’re not going anywhere.” 
 
 One of the challenges for Bush and other GOP hopefuls has been the dominance of real-estate impresario Donald Trump, who has siphoned off much of the enthusiasm in the base. The businessman raised $3.8 million, even though he has pledged to self-fund his campaign and is not soliciting contributions. 
 
 [No more ‘shock and awe’ for Jeb Bush] 
 
 “Donald Trump has basically stultified the fundraising for these candidates,” said Anthony Scaramucci, who had been Walker’s national finance co-chair and is now backing Bush. “He’s the Trump speed bump. His ratcheting up in the polls has made it very difficult for more establishment Republicans to get traction with donors.” 
 
 In all, six Democratic candidates reported raising $123.2 million for their campaign committees so far this year, while 15 GOP candidates pulled in $143.5 million overall. 
 
 Clinton and Sanders together had $60.1 million on hand at the end of September. Meanwhile, the 15 Republicans combined reported having $61.2 million in the bank. 
 
 View Graphic How much money is behind each campaign? 
 
 The totals raised on each side by the candidate-aligned super PACs are unclear, because they do not have to report their fundraising until Jan. 31. But by mid-year, GOP allied groups had raised $234 million and Democratic groups had pulled in $17 million. 
 
 Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson raised the most in the Republican field last quarter, scooping up $20.8 million. He still fell short of the totals posted by Clinton ($29.5 million) and Sanders ($26.2 million). 
 
 Other GOP candidates trail behind: Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas ($12.2 million), former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina ($6.8 million), Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida ($5.7 million), Ohio Gov. John Kasich ($4.4 million), New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ($4.2 million) and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky ($2.5 million). 
 
 One of the Democrats’ major structural advantages is the size of their small-donor bases. A staggering 650,000 individuals have given Sanders money already, while nearly 400,000 have donated to Clinton, her campaign said Thursday. 
 
 The senator from Vermont spent just $11.3 million last quarter, ending September with almost $27.1 million in the bank. 
 
 Clinton spent at a much faster pace, shelling out $25.7 million as her campaign made deep investments in building its data analytics and national ground operation. Her biggest expense was for a staff that swelled to 511 over the summer — $8.5 million went to payroll and taxes. She headed into October with nearly $33 million on hand. 
 
 [Updated: Inside the 2016 money race] 
 
 Carson and Cruz appear to have built the strongest small-donation operations on the GOP side. Carson raised 60 percent of his money last quarter in low-dollar contributions — more than $12 million — thanks to a donor base of 402,000 people. Cruz brought in $5.3 million in small contributions, 44 percent of his total haul. 
 
 Fiorina also saw a late burst of small donations. Almost half of the $6.8 million she raised was in low-dollar contributions, with donations spiking after her two lauded debate performances. 
 
 Low-dollar contributors are key to a candidate’s long-term health — not just because they can provide repeated injections of cash, but because they bring energy. 
 
 “That’s the biggest leading indicator for us about who is hot,” said Becki Donatelli, a top GOP digital strategist whose firm is working for eight of the 2016 candidates. “These are your volunteers. They’ve got skin in the game.” 
 
 That has been a weakness for Bush, whose small donations amounted to just 6.5 percent of his total last quarter. Instead, his finance operation relies heavily on a network of longtime family loyalists. On Thursday, his campaign released a list of 342 fundraisers who have bundled at least $17,600 for his bid, but it did not indicate how much each person has raised. More than 70 of the bundlers are from his home state of Florida. 
 
 Bush raced through $11.5 million over the summer, spending money at a steep “burn rate” of nearly 86 percent. 
 
 He was not alone: Many of the candidates spent money at an intense clip in the third quarter. 
 
 Carson’s campaign spent $14 million between July and September. Of that, $9.5 million was spent on media and advertising. Nearly $2.7 million went to direct-mail expenses, and $1.4 million was allocated for payroll expenses. 
 
 [Voters are mad about mega-donors, and it’s helping Trump and Sanders] 
 
 Trump burned through $4 million in three months, more than the $3.9 million his campaign took in. He reported paying more than 50 consulting firms or individuals, including security guards, strategists, communications specialists, event producers, video­graphers, photographers, web designers and a host of administrative support staffers. 
 
 Trump’s biggest expenses appear to be the renting out large venues to host elaborate events that attract thousands, as well as campaign swag. He has thus far spent more than $800,000 on T-shirts, hats and other campaign-branded items. He also appears to have purchased radio airtime in Virginia and has hired telemarketing and direct-mail firms. 
 
 Paul spent $4.5 million, nearly double the $2.5 million he brought in — an unsustainable burn rate of 186 percent. His biggest expenditures were for campaign consulting and online advertising. 
 
 Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), who has struggled to break out of the bottom tier of 2016 candidates since launching his bid in June, raised less than $600,000 during the third fundraising quarter in 2015. He spent more than $800,000, with the bulk of those expenditures going to payroll, media and campaign consulting. 
 
 Thursday’s filings shed light on the dire financial predicaments that led Walker and Perry to drop out. 
 
 Perry, a former Texas governor, raised just $252,000 in contributions during the most last recent reporting period — from July 1 to Sept. 30 — but racked up more than $1 million in operating expenditures during that same time. To sustain that pace, the campaign relied on the $884,000 it held at the beginning of the reporting period. 
 
 In all, the campaign paid nearly $300,000 in consulting fees on expenses ranging from finance to media specialists. Of that, $200,000 went to Abstract Communications LLC, a consulting firm registered under the name of his campaign manager, Jeffrey Miller. Miller could not be reached to comment. 
 
 Jose A. DelReal, Tom Hamburger and Jenna Johnson contributed to this report. ||||| A week after Election Day, three Republican governors mentioned as 2016 presidential candidates — Bobby Jindal, John Kasich and Bob McDonnell — each stopped by the Venetian Resort Hotel Casino to meet privately with its owner Sheldon Adelson, a man who could single-handedly underwrite their White House ambitions. 
 
 Planning a presidential campaign used to mean having coffee with county party chairs in their Iowa or New Hampshire living rooms. The courting of Adelson, a full four years out from 2016, demonstrates how super PAC sugar daddies have become the new must-have feature for White House wannabes. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset Allen on 2016, donors Video: POLITICO on Super PACs 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Megadonors seek low profiles) 
 
 And prospective candidates from both parties are wasting little time schmoozing potential super PAC funders. 
 
 Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is meeting with big donors in Los Angeles this week and has a fundraiser scheduled for next Monday in the Washington suburbs. Vice President Joe Biden, Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) have been meeting with big donors, leaving the impression that they’re ready to run. 
 
 “A group of five people could contribute $10 million each and finance a substantial primary campaign for a candidate,” said former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges. “So there is probably more of an effort right now focused on trying to look at those people who are capable of being very large donors, rather than soliciting or developing the network of bundlers that were out there in the past.” 
 
 (PHOTOS: Republicans, 2016: In full swing) 
 
 Hodges, a Democrat, is co-hosting the fundraiser for O’Malley’s leadership PAC in Chevy Chase, Md., on Monday. He also raised money earlier this year for the PAC fronted by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, and said he’d probably help other Democrats “who want to get out there and test the waters” by meeting with donors. “It’s an important part of a process.” 
 
 And it’s becoming more important, as demonstrated by the 2012 Republican primaries — the first since federal court decisions allowed super PACs to accept unlimited cash — which proved that a single super-rich supporter can essentially float an entire campaign. While the GOP establishment desperately tried to rally around eventual nominee Mitt Romney, super PACs funded by Adelson, Foster Friess and Jon Huntsman Sr. extended the challenges of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman Jr. respectively, before a pro-Romney super PAC obliterated the field. 
 
 And in 2016 — with open primaries in both parties and the power of super PACs firmly established — the biggest donors are being courted earlier than ever. Not only are entreaties coming before most of the donors are anywhere close to choosing sides, none of the suitors are willing to discuss their plans publicly. 
 
 (See also: Dem super PACs jump on 2014, 2016) 
 
 Santorum is privately telling friends that he’s running again, POLITICO has learned. Friess, a retired mutual fund guru who donated $2.2 million to a pair of super PACs credited with helping lift Santorum to a surprise win over Romney in the Iowa caucuses, said, “Right now, I’m certainly still in his camp, but four years is a long way away.” 
 
 Adelson — a Las Vegas casino billionaire whose family donated a record $84 million or more to GOP outside groups, including $20 million each to the super PACs devoted to Romney and Gingrich — has signaled that he is undeterred from his weak 2012 return on investment and plans to continue giving big. ||||| Back to previous page 
 
 In race for campaign funds from billionaires, Romney outpaces Obama 
 
 The Republican presidential primary contest isn’t over, but in the race to line up the richest donors, it’s Mitt Romney vs. President Obama. 
 
 Romney has drawn the most support from billionaires, with at least 42 donating to his campaign. Obama is not far behind, with at least 30 billionaire supporters. Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman Jr. follow with 20 and 12, respectively, according to donor rolls and the current Forbes magazine list of 412 American billionaires. 
 
 Very wealthy donors are likely to play a greater role in this election cycle in the wake of recent court decisions that have loosened rules for campaign contributions. That will only heighten one of the dominant narratives of the 2012 campaign: the nation’s rising income inequality and the outsize political influence of the super-wealthy. 
 
 This year is shaping up to be a reprise of the 2004 cycle, which saw big donations flow in for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) an President George W. Bush. 
 
 Although donors are limited to giving no more than $5,000 directly to a campaign, new rules allow them to give to “super PACs” that run independent ads supporting the candidates. Donations to super PACs are not limited, so billionaires can donate as much as they want. And, given the changes in campaign laws, it is likely that one of those donors will top the record $24 million that hedge-fund founder George Soros spent in 2004 to support Kerry. 
 
 “The only limit on the resources is the willingness of the donors to give,” said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College and a former Democratic official. “It doesn’t take long to transfer $500,000 from one account to another.” 
 
 Romney’s richest donor so far is hedge-fund titan John Paulson, who is worth an estimated $16 billion, according to Forbes. Paulson has given $1 million to the Restore Our Future super PAC, which former Romney aides set up to support his candidacy. The PAC and a spokesman for Paulson declined to comment. The Romney campaign did not respond to a request for comment. 
 
 Obama had a large head start, having amassed $157 million by the end of September for his campaign and the Democratic Party, more than the GOP candidates combined. But the Republicans could tip the balance going forward, given widespread disenchantment with the president’s policies — especially among the wealthy. 
 
 This campaign will represent a marked difference from the 2008 cycle, which had a rare drop in big donations and spending by interest groups, largely because Obama and Republican nominee John McCain eschewed their support. 
 
 But this time, the Obama campaign no longer objects to help from interest groups. That was broadly interpreted as a tacit admission that, after major GOP gains in the 2010 midterm elections, the outside help was critical. 
 
 Romney has attracted the support of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and other billionaires, including California real estate developer Donald Bren, who is worth $12 billion, and developer and publisher Sam Zell, who is worth $5 billion. A spokesman for Snyder declined to comment and those for Bren and Zell did not return requests for comment. 
 
 Obama’s richest donor is Len Blavatnik, a Russian American industrialist worth $10.1 billion. He also donated to Romney. A spokesman for Blavatnik declined to comment. 
 
 Other billionaires supporting the president include longtime Democratic Party backer Peter Lewis, chairman of insurance company Progressive; former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt, who is worth $7 billion; and John Doerr, a venture capitalist worth $2.2 billion who serves on Obama’s jobs council. Messages requesting comment from the donors were not returned. 
 
 “Our campaign is fueled by donations from more than 1 million Americans, 98 percent of which were in amounts of $250 or less,” Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said. 
 
 The Obama campaign is receiving a higher percentage of its money from small donors than it did in 2008, something that has encouraged supporters. But his fundraising strategy also relies on drawing big donors. 
 
 Five of Obama’s billionaire donors have signed up to help raise money for the campaign, including hedge-fund managers Marc Lasry and David Shaw, Chicago real estate developer Neil Bluhm and hotel heiress Penny Pritzker. Marc Benioff, the founder of Salesforce.com and a pioneer in cloud computing for businesses, has raised at least $500,000 for the campaign, the largest figure among the billionaire bundlers. 
 
 But Obama’s biggest backer so far isn’t a billionaire: Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, who is worth approximately $800 million, has raised $500,000 for the campaign and contributed $2 million of his own money to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing Obama. 
 
 Donor records show that four billionaires had supported Republican candidate Newt Gingrich by the end of September, before his rise in polls. Several of those supporters, including casino owner Sheldon Adelson and Amway founder Richard DeVos, have in the past shown a willingness to use their deep pockets to advance their political goals. Adelson has donated at least $7 million to one of Gingrich’s political groups. 
 
 Super PACs are turning out to be the vehicle of choice for wealthy donors. Created as an indirect result of last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, the groups can accept unlimited donations from individuals and corporations and spend the money on hard-hitting campaign ads. 
 
 In 2004, corporations were banned from bankrolling ads in the final two months of a campaign, and ads sponsored by most interest groups were not allowed to directly attack or support candidates. 
 
 The ability to run those ads in 2012 could attract more spending by wealthy donors, Corrado said. 
 
 “One of the things about large investors in campaigns is that they’re very interested in getting results,” Corrado said. “And it is much easier to get a large effect in a race if you can give to directly advocate for and against a candidate.” 
 
 Steve Rosenthal, who ran one of the largest independent groups helping Democrats in 2004, said that people who write large checks to independent groups are generally motivated more by ideology than by access to political figures. 
 
 “They’re not people who are trying to stay a night in the Lincoln bedroom,” Rosenthal said. “These are mostly people who believe strongly in a set of values and ideals.” ||||| WASHINGTON — President Obama is signaling to wealthy Democratic donors that he wants them to start contributing to an outside group supporting his re-election, reversing a long-held position as he confronts a deep financial disadvantage on a vital front in the campaign. 
 
 Aides said the president had signed off on a plan to dispatch cabinet officials, senior advisers at the White House and top campaign staff members to deliver speeches on behalf of Mr. Obama at fund-raising events for Priorities USA Action, the leading Democratic “super PAC,” whose fund-raising has been dwarfed by Republican groups. The new policy was presented to the campaign’s National Finance Committee in a call Monday evening and announced in an e-mail to supporters. 
 
 “We’re not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back,” Jim Messina, the manager of Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, said in an interview. “With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules. Democrats can’t be unilaterally disarmed.” 
 
 Neither the president, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., nor their wives will attend fund-raising events or solicit donations for the Democratic group. A handful of officials from the administration and the campaign will appear on behalf of Mr. Obama, aides said, but will not directly ask for money. 
 
 The decision, which comes nine months before Election Day, escalates the money wars and is a milestone in Mr. Obama’s evolving stances on political fund-raising. The lines have increasingly blurred between presidential campaigns and super PACs, which have flourished since a 2010 Supreme Court ruling and other legal and regulatory decisions made it easier for outside groups to raise unlimited donations to promote candidates. 
 
 
 
 The Republican National Committee sharply criticized the decision. A spokesman, Joe Pounder, declared: “Yet again, Barack Obama has proven he will literally do anything to win an election, including changing positions on the type of campaign spending he called nothing short of ‘a threat to our democracy.’ ” 
 
 The outside groups are playing an increasingly prominent role in the presidential race by running aggressive advertising campaigns, often attacking opponents. Mr. Obama said in 2008 that he did not want support from outside groups and took a strong stand against the influence of special-interest money in politics, effectively shutting down independent activity on his behalf. 
 
 For his re-election campaign, he did not object to the formation of Priorities USA Action, which is run by two former White House aides, but until now had done nothing overtly to help the group. His past criticism of outside groups, some Democrats said, had made it hard to persuade donors to back Priorities USA Action, contributing to its problems in keeping up with conservative groups. 
 
 “It’s hard to pass the plate for super PAC money while Democratic leaders have been preaching about the sins of it,” said Robert Zimmerman, a New York fund-raiser for Mr. Obama. “But the reality is, it is essential in 2012.” 
 
 Several Democratic financiers said they were alarmed last week by fund-raising reports from the major Republican super PACS. Two groups that were formed with help from the Republican strategist Karl Rove, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, raised $51 million between them last year for the Congressional and presidential races. Groups supporting specific Republican presidential candidates brought in roughly $40 million. 
 
 But the major Democratic groups, including Priorities USA Action, raised only $19 million for the year. Those lopsided figures led Mr. Messina to send his top network of donors an e-mail last week urging them to raise more money. 
 
 “Due to unlimited and unprecedented super Pac spending, we may have no spending advantage (as we did in 2008) and could in fact get outspent,” Mr. Messina wrote in the e-mail. “I thought this might help you put the other side’s efforts into some context as you talk to friends and supporters about why we need their help and we need it now.” 
 
 But major donors to Mr. Obama said in interviews that they were not sure the Democratic super PAC’s lackluster fund-raising was due entirely to the president’s public misgivings about outside spending. One longtime, high-dollar Democratic fund-raiser said it was also partly a result of Wall Street’s anger at Mr. Obama’s statements and policies concerning bank regulation, some of which have sent former Obama donors and fund-raisers to the Republicans.
– No modern candidate can run a legit campaign without help from a super PAC with deep pockets, yes? The New York Times reports that Bernie Sanders is providing a real test of that accepted wisdom. He's managed to build a "formidable" sum of $15.2 million while eschewing super PACs, with the average donation to his campaign at $31.30. The vast majority of that total comes from small donations routed through the ActBlue website, which handles donations for Democrats. Sanders knows he will still be widely outspent, but thinks he'll have plenty of money to run a smart, frugal, and "winning" campaign. Some other political stories from the wires today: 'Not himself': A Politico story on Joe Biden quotes a longtime friend as saying that "he's just not himself" as he considers a run. "He’s sort of all over the place. He’s engaged but not in that child-like, manic way he usually is. He’s taking it all in and soaking up information, but he’s hard to read. And Joe Biden isn’t usually that hard to read.” 'Out of line': After his run-in with Univision reporter Jorge Ramos last night, Donald Trump tells Today.com that Ramos was "totally out of line" when he began calling out questions and deserved to be ejected. "I would have gotten to him very quickly." Ramos tweets that it was Trump who was out of line. Unwanted endorsement: Former KKK grand wizard David Duke has weighed in on the 2016 race, and he thinks Trump is the only candidate who "understands the real sentiment of America," reports BuzzFeed. Trouble for the Ricks: The AP reports that Rick Perry and Rick Santorum are having serious trouble keeping the donors who supported them in the last presidential race. Most of those 2012 donors have defected to other candidates.