Although the Democrats weren't able to earn delegates in Michigan or Florida, because the states scheduled early primaries without the national party's blessing, the hopefuls still spent nearly $3.4 million in those states. Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida--more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.

I also agree that it depends on when the money was spent and what it was spent on.  

Paul,

The information from the Center for Responsive Politics that Jerome Armstrong cites comes from our Feb. 5 analysis of the candidates' year-end campaign finance reports; it's not something we posted today. He also conveniently left out this disclaimer from that same item of ours: "Now would be a good time to mention that measuring spending in a state is problematic. The biggest expenses--advertising, for one--are often spent with vendors outside the state, or even just over the state line. These figures measure only what was spent on the ground with local companies and individuals."

To explain further, the expenditures figures Jerome cited are calculated by looking only at the addresses of the vendors that each campaign paid. They are almost certainly not accurate counts of how much was spent in a state. It's possible that Obama hired a vendor based in Florida who did work outside the state for his campaign. For example, maybe the printer of his signs is in Florida. The amount of money spent on signs would appear in the campaign finance reports to have been focused solely on Florida, when, in fact, the signs were used to campaign all over the country.

Bottom line: I wouldn't use state spending totals gleaned from campaign finance reports to saw anything authoritative about a candidate's effort in a particular state. The FEC's requirements for reporting expenditures just don't allow for that sort of precision.

Feel free to share what I've told you with the blogosphere. And thanks for your question.

Massie Ritsch
Center for Responsive Politics

As you can see in kid oakland's MyDD diary and from a comment in this thread, the Center for Responsive Politics publishes a disclaimer it the item you both cited, which you neglected to report:

"Now would be a good time to mention that measuring spending in a state is problematic. The biggest expenses--advertising, for one--are often spent with vendors outside the state, or even just over the state line. These figures measure only what was spent on the ground with local companies and individuals."

That's not rationalization, that's just fact.

And that's not all.

Massie Ritsch, the Communications Director for the Center, explained the situation further, in emails to both kid oakland and myself. He gave us permission to share his email with the public (emphasis mine):

To explain further, the expenditures figures Jerome cited are calculated by looking only at the addresses of the vendors that each campaign paid. They are almost certainly not accurate counts of how much was spent in a state. It's possible that Obama hired a vendor based in Florida who did work outside the state for his campaign. For example, maybe the printer of his signs is in Florida. The amount of money spent on signs would appear in the campaign finance reports to have been focused solely on Florida, when, in fact, the signs were used to campaign all over the country.

Bottom line: I wouldn't use state spending totals gleaned from campaign finance reports to saw [sic] anything authoritative about a candidate's effort in a particular state. The FEC's requirements for reporting expenditures just don't allow for that sort of precision.

There's just no way at the moment to describe these numbers as disbursements for "campaigning in Florida."

What's more, the point of your post is questionable:

Yes, it seems clear the Florida playing field was NOT level. Obama outspent Clinton in Florida. Let the rationalizations begin.

How can you say the playing field was not level when you don't know how much Clinton spent?

That Capital Eye report said the Dem "hopefuls still spent nearly $3.4 million in those states," meaning MI and FL.

Obama spent 1.3 mil in FL, Obama and Clinton spent 260,000 total in MI, so that leaves 1.84 mil. What part of that did Clinton spend in FL? We don't know. But given the other candidates' relative lack of funds, Clinton's FL portion of that total could certainly be close to Obama's number.

I can't say I'm terribly surprised.  Obama's strategy was the early states while Hillary's was the Super Tuesday states.

Given that, unless one or the other violated the rules, this spending occurred prior to September of 2007.  

I seem to remember that Obama ran a couple ads in Florida on CNN and MSNBC, but that doesn't up to $1.3 million.

From the linked article:

Now would be a good time to mention that measuring spending in a state is problematic. The biggest expenses--advertising, for one--are often spent with vendors outside the state, or even just over the state line. These figures measure only what was spent on the ground with local companies and individuals.

I think it's a shame that at a time when we were outraged at the attempts by the DOJ and US Attorneys and legislatures to systematically suppress the vote and disenfranchise voters, the DNC made the decision to effectively deny the voters of Michigan and Florida a voice in the process.  I get that they felt they needed to impose something draconian enough to prevent other states from butting to the head of the line - but it brings into question - again - why it is that Iowa, NH, South Carolina and Nevada had to have a stranglehold on the calendar.  Thanks to that February 5 line-in-the-sand, we had the most compressed primary calendar ever, and I do not think it has served the process well.