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

[gjoh]

I am one of those small donors that you are trying so hard to dismiss. I am not a myth. But this study and this story is a myth.

[marijam]

Just goes to show you how a statistic can be spun any way you want to spin it. Usually its by ignoring off-setting facts. In this case, I'd like to see the total number of donors, period.

[Yuma]

M2 and All of our friends.

[RatgurlSD]

I collectively donated about $280 over 8 months. I guess that makes me a "big" donor.

[CaptainVideo]

No! To be considered a large donor you had to contribute $1000 or more. People like you are simply ignored in this study. The amounts you contributed are not included at all.

It would be very interesting to see what percentage of the money came from UNLARGE DONORS who contributed less than $1000.

[patrice37]

Andrew Malcolm is the LAT's resident "fair and balanced" political reporter, dedicated to digging up excellent news for Republicans. But what do I care? Since my donations totaled, oh, $275, I'm expecting an ambassadorship or, at the least, a meeting with Obama to present my health care plan. Plus, I'm sure my mom will get an invitation to the Lincoln Bedroom.

[mamacat]

One article by one author does not the truth reveal.

[ccmd]

you just had to be there (on the blogs) to really get it.

[joshuahmcdonald]

The bottom line is that this study is representing an outdated conception of what small-donor and large-donor labels mean. In fact, like many other aspects of our political process (including his internet fueled campaign, his honest commitment to governance rather than politics and his ethnicity), President Elect Obama has simply changed the rules so that these labels no longer apply. Obama's campaign may not have been primarily funded by small-donors, as this article attests, but if that is true then it is even more impressive that he created a movement which in turn created an entirely new donor middle-class.

Both my wife and I donated in $10 and $25 increments when we could and when there was news that specifically compelled us to over the course of nearly 2 years and each ended up giving nearly $1000. No, I suppose that we were not the small-donors of the past. But we began as a couple who had never participated in the political process before and ended as middle-class donors, activists and political junkies. And we're not the only ones.

While this article may be technically correct, frankly, it misses the point.

[dbskdvr]

It is a false or at least misleading statement. Lets say you have 10 donors who gave $1000 and 10 who gave $100. You would say 50% were small donors, but you would have to say 91% of the money came from large donors. I also think there is something to be said for small donors who added up to $1000 or so vs. gave it all at once. I know I give $5000 to my church every year but I can't write that all as one check. $100/wk is doable, and likewise, I would get several emails a day asking for $10-$100 for Obama, and occaisionally I could spare it. That is different than some fat cat lobbyist writing his $2300 check and getting into the upper echelons of donors.

Telling statistic: 3M donors, 4M donations, 600M dollars. Do the math, average was 150/200 per donor or donation. Useful comparisons would be to know the distribution in each. But bottom line, Obama is beholden to no one.

[demographx]

Oh Geez. Now that we know $200 makes you a big donor, just imagine all the political favors (Like this one - http://sidewayswineclub.typepad.com/blog/2008/11/an-open-letter-to-president-elect-obama.html) his donor base will be seeking. The people in line just to shake his hand will be so long and time-consuming he'll never get around to solving the financial problem, tending to the wars he's inherited, fixing health care...
But the real story here is, once again, the poor state of American journalism. I have to "thank" Andrew Malcolm and the crack journalistic standards over at the L.A. Times for giving lie to this urban myth.
Oh how the mighty have fallen. I think it's safe to say they've seen their last Pulitzer prize.
Demographx

[Leslib]

The bottom line is that the Obama campaign got more money because people wanted change and he represented it. We donated to Obama because he was our choice. If the Republicans can't handle it then tough. Guess their campaign suffered from Republican trickle down economics...they just couldn't manage to let go of their money for this campaign. Looks like that worked as well as trickle down economics works in the general economy. Not newsworthy. Not a story. Go lick your wounds.

[Thomas777]

Here's the worrying aspect of this report. 80% of the money Obama got for his campaign came from sources who gave over $1000. That excludes most of the average individual doners (like you) who gave much less than that.

Those average individuals (like you) who mostly donated through the internet, only accounted for about 20 percent of his campaign financing.

Rather than shooting this article down, why not inform yourselves? Here are some other articles to check out if you're interested in knowing more about where the majority of Obama's campaign financing came from:

http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/18/donor-bundling-emerges-as-major-ill-in-08-race/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-exaggerat.html

[eden4barack08]

You're wrong because many of us gave in small increments, but by the end added up to $1000 or more. And this study includes us, by summing up our totals into one big donation. Believe it or not, there's many, many of us who add up to a $1000 or more, and we're not big donors.

[jcwtts1]

absolutely right. the campaign went on for 18 months. hundreds of thousands of people broke through the 1000 dollar barrier by give 50 a check. It is crazy to call these people big donors. What they are is the new paradigm all these faulty political models can realize yet. Sort of like the faulty model that told McCain PA was a better bet than Michigan. PA was over in March, it wasn't even close as anyone living in PA and following politics could tell you. But know the statistical modeling said it was in play and the media lemmings that they are talked about it for weeks. Small donations from first time political activists count as small donations no matter what the total. There are lies damn lies and statistics.

J

[puffthedragon]

Hey doubting Thomas... did you get hold of some sour grapes?

[Thomas777]

This is precisely why we're having a financial meltdown. Both parties are severely corrupt. People need to deal with it.

[zpdd7]

"Here's the worrying aspect of this report. 80% of the money Obama got for his campaign came from sources who gave over $1000."

Umm.. the worrying part is that the exact report you cite states this "Obama received about 80% more money from large donors (cumulative contributions of at least $1,000) than from small donors" and you are not able to discern the difference between the two claims.

Simple math folks, simple math.

[Thomas777]

Zpdd7, yeah, the wording of this report is bad, and I understand the meaning you're drawing from it, but I'm not taking it that way. Do you really think that the donors who gave over $1000 merely gave 80% more? So the dig donations averaged $1800? That would make no sense. I think what this report is trying to say (albeit badly) is that 80% of Obama's money came from the big donor sources.

I mean, do you really think that the small donors (like us) really funded over half of his 500 million dollar campaign?

[Angelic11]

abc source:

"Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a "law" that the Illinois Democrat has "pushed through" but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information."

key words: "Obama voluntarily discloses that information."

honest & open

[TiaL27]

Some people gave their $500-$1000 Stimulus/Tax Rebate check to the Obama campaign. Here are a few post below from How I Spent My Stimulus Website -

http://www.howispentmystimulus.com/posts/archive/week:18/year:2008

http://www.howispentmystimulus.com/posts/view/1640

http://www.howispentmystimulus.com/posts/view/1076

[TiaL27]

...sorry the first link didn't work -

http://www.howispentmystimulus.com/posts/view/774

http://www.howispentmystimulus.com/posts/view/331

[Girl28]

So if I gave $201 dollars, I'm not a small donor? Does that mean I could've had the pres-elect in my backpocket? I wish I knew this earlier, I would've nominated myself for Secretary of State.

[kewps]

I was only able to donate $5 at a time. I like to think I made some difference. This was the first political campaign I had ever donated to and I have been around for awhile.

[zippitydoo]

you did make a difference and don't let a blogger that used to work for Laura Boosh tell you you did not.............read the bio of the man that wrote this article and then run the numbers again

[MIVOTE]

I'm proud to be a small undisclosed donor of $25 from time to time. I love being under the radar.

[TiaL27]

I guess my friends, my family, and internet chat buddies are all mythical donors. Go figure

[AMonkey]

Yes, and me and mine as well.