Study: Obama's Small Donor Base Image A Myth

Los Angeles Times:

Everybody knows how President-elect Barack Obama's amazing campaign money machine was dominated by several million regular folks sending in hard-earned amounts under $200, a real sign of his broadbased grassroots support.

Except, it turns out, that's not really true.

Read the whole story: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[mathme]

Someone made a comment about designing a study to prove any point (or something like that)-- I think that if this data were available to us (and it probably is), we could analyze it and come up with new cut offs. I'm just saying that don't blame the stats or the data, but the interpretations and the theoretical assumptions that the authors were using. The fact is that even reaching the limit of $4,500 (or whatever it is) still doesn't make you a large donor! I have very few large financial obligations, honestly, but then again, I'm a graduate student living on a stipend, so I don't have a lot of money, either. However, if I made even 35K a year, I could have easily, over the course of the campaign, reached that limit. It might be easier to judge a "large donor" by the size of the donations. Someone who had enough to donate the max as one lump would probably be more likely to be a large donor-- however, it might also have struck a frugal Democrat (especially over the last 8 years) to begin setting aside money to donate to the 08 candidate whoever that may have been. The fact of the matter is that in the big scheme of things, $4000+ isn't *that* much money. Yeah, I would LOVE that much money, but saving 1K per year for 4 years? less than $100 a month? Totally feasible.

[fromero]

The question now arises: The so-called small donors who contributed repeatedly up to the $4,600 legal limit in small increments of $200 or less, did they contribute their own money or was the money channeled through them by the super rich with a stake in the outcome of the election? It's hard to believe that the average American, struggling to stay financially afloat in this hard times, could afford to make campaign contributions of any size.

[EminentGrise]

Obama was a myth before he has accomplished anything. With the MSM kneeling in awe of him, he is sure to continue to receive adulation without doing anything. It all started with his ghost written bio's and will end with Chris Matthews slobbering about his magnificance. All bow before the "ONE".

[wezcoz]

Obama's Inauguration Day Poem, (click or copy/paste address) Go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57ZRYgX_F6Y



(You may have to hit refresh-if you get an unavailable message)

[sixx]

"... the report relates, deep within, that Obama, in fact, received donations under $200 from a staggering 2.5 million people..."
Case closed.

[Kartoffel]

Case NOT closed. Obama's people intentionally disabled the basic anti-fraud safeguards(Address Verification System) on his website, which meant people could make as many sub-$200 donations as they wanted simply by typing in fake names. The same credit card number could be used over and over. Even pre-paid cards were accepted. ANYONE could have used those, including foreigners.

A large number of small donations does NOT equal a large number of small donors when the fraud safeguards have been disabled on the website. Obama has refused repeated requests to publish his sub-$200 donor list. You don't have to a genius to figure out that he he's hiding something.

[patsijean]

I could only afford $10.00 and that is what I donated. I am proud of my contribution.

[ajax2]

Very poorly done Mr. Malcolm. Statistics were not your best subject, but perhaps dictation was.

[NoSandwiches]

They make a big deal of how the TOTAL amount someone donated was actually OVER 200. That's misleading. The fact is, because of the internet and ease of donating smaller amounts any time you wanted too, the 20 dollar donors turned into donors who gave more than 200 because of the pay as you go plan. I gave 5 or 6 times. Everytime some joker on the news made me made, I donated another 10, 15, 20 dollars. I gave 17.76 on the 4th of July and made a donation equal to BO's age on his birthday. It was the fact that he continued to inspire people that they continued to give.

You can do a lot with numbers to make a point one way and then use the same numbers to "prove" something opposite. So what.

We did it. We did it with small donations. Just because my donations added up to 221.76 doesn't make me a "large" donor.

[IkeChicago]

Anything to call Barack Obama a fraud and a liar. Is there anything we will not end up knowing about Obama and his family in the near future.

[Troubledwawa]

I gave 50 dollars a month from January through October and according to Andrew Malcolm, I'm a big donor.

Thanks for the laugh Andrew.

[DWP]

So someone who gives $25.00 per month for a year, would not be considered a "small donor"? Give me a break.

[concernvoter]

If Obama was white the experts would not be complaining about the money that was contribute to the campaign. The only reason why this keeps coming up is because the Republicans did not come with the internet plan before Obama. My Goodness. Find a trade that will best fit you in the future. It appears that the experts are not always right about what they say.

[rf-hawaii]

I only contributed $250. I'll do better next time. It's gratifying to see how well it worked!

[JenMI]

I read the entire story and it comes down to a claim that anyone who contributed more than 200.00 is not considered a small donor..ridiculous. I, like many, contributed several times in small increments, never coming close to the legal limit but certainly over 200.00. I am not a bundler, lobbyist or activist for any special interest...just a regular American looking for a change in the direction of this country. The myth lies with Andrew Malcolm.

[totalliberal]

Who gets to say what contributions came from bundlers? The LA Times? Oh I think not.