<em>Illustration: Simon Letch</em>

Illustration: Simon Letch

This morning, Australian time, the US President, Barack Obama, is due to attend a fund-raising dinner party at the New York home of movie stars Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick. Co-hosted by the editor-in-chief of Vogue, Anna Wintour, the price of a ticket was a reported $80,000 a head. Not a good look for the President in the week the US Federal Reserve reported that average American wealth had plummeted to $77,300 in 2010 - down from $126,400 in 2007.

As the US economy is underperforming, unemployment is officially 8.2 per cent and confidence is, at best, wavering, this would not seem to be the time to be hanging out with high-wattage wealthy celebrities. But the President needs the money.

Obama and the now certain-to-be-anointed Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, have opted to not accept public financing for the 2012 presidential election campaign. Previously, candidates would raise money to boost their electoral fortunes before the party conventions, but after that would accept the benefits - and constraints - of public funding.

Now, after a Supreme Court decision that effectively deregulated campaign financing (undoing all those decades of hard work to reform what had arguably been a pretty corrupt system), the bar has been raised significantly.

More money is going to be needed. And there are now virtually no limits on how it is raised or spent.

This presidential election is, according to Obama's senior campaign strategist, David Axelrod, going ''to test the limits of what money can do in politics, because there's gonna be so much of it concentrated in so few states'', as he told New York magazine's John Heilemann earlier this month.

And Obama is now falling behind in the fund-raising stakes. Although at the end of March, when he had raised about US$197 million, he was way ahead of the then-frontrunner Republican contender Romney, who had just $87.5 million, the other Republicans have since coalesced behind Romney - and so have their donors.

Just this week, billionaire Nevada casino owner Sheldon Adelson, who had been backing Newt Gingrich, kicked in $10 million to Romney's Restore Our Future super-PAC (political action committee) and Forbes magazine reports he may well follow that with the $100 million he had promised Gingrich.

Last month, Romney raised $76.8 million to Obama's $60 million, and he is pulling ahead with the very wealthy.

Wall Street has spurned Obama, so far giving Romney $37.1 million and Obama only $4.8 million. Ominously, these sums include donations from 19 people who gave to Obama in 2008 but not this time. Forbes says 32 billionaires, or 8 per cent of their 400 rich list, have donated to Romney and more will follow.

So while Obama continues to pursue the grassroots online fund-raising that was so successful in 2008, for the really big bucks he is being forced to take his begging bowl to three different and potentially risky sources of funds: Hollywood, Silicon Valley and rich gays. No one in the know doubts that the President's decision to support gay marriage was made with an eye to the pink dollar. A few days after the decision, a Hollywood fund-raiser hosted by George Clooney and including high profile gay supporters, raised $15 million.

This strategy is risky because it requires Obama to be hanging out with the mega-rich at a time when his political message is directed to economically distressed Americans, who are striving to return to being middle class. It could easily backfire on him.

The now pretty much united Republicans are trying to portray Obama as more focused on fund-raising than on governing. Given he has done 160 events so far (compared with George Bush's 74 at this time in the 2004 race), including six in just six hours in Maryland last Tuesday, this will not be a hard case to make.

A few weeks ago it was unimaginable that America's first black president may be in danger of not winning a second term but that prospect is now causing apprehension and even panic among Democrats.

The failed recall of the Republican governor Scott Walker in the highly unionised and overwhelmingly Democratic state of Wisconsin is being seen as a huge wake-up call that the party cannot assume that it will win in the presidential election in November.

Consolidated polling is showing just a two-point difference between Obama and Romney. Even among the three key demographics Obama felt confident of holding - women, young people and Latinos - the numbers are starting to close.

If Romney chooses Latino Florida senator Marco Rubio as his running mate, as a straw poll among party conservatives advocated this week, they could be a formidable team able to make significant inroads into the much-needed Latino vote in states such as Florida and Arizona.

Obama shows no signs of improving his ticket would he ditch the Vice-President, Joe Biden, although refreshing his team would seem to be a no-brainer in a tight electoral race. If this is not the time to place the extremely popular Hillary Clinton on the ticket, when is?

Obama's team foolishly set the bar high by leaking their expectation that their guy would be the first in presidential election history to raise $US1 billion and that Priorities USA Action, his super-PAC, would rake in another $100 million. Instead, Obama is struggling to reach the revised target of $750 million and his PAC, according to New York magazine, has just an embarrassing $10 million.

So we will be seeing a lot more of Obama with movie stars and the super-rich in coming months. The only question is whether the money raised will be at the expense of his political credibility - and his electoral prospects.

Twitter: @SummersAnne