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

[lisa58]

I disagree that it was a myth. I probably gave the limit over 9 months - but I could never write a check for $2,300. I was invested and therefore gave money every time he won, every time he lost and every time I felt like it.

[kewps]

Every time the repugs would go off on a rant, Obama got a small donation from me. They really racked it up from me over the course of the snarky Republican convention!

[lisa58]

me too - complain at your own peril

[jsarets]

Well, by these standards, I don't qualify as a small donor.

I contributed a total of $230. My largest single contribution was one donation of $50. The rest were in $20 increments spread throughout the year.

I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford this amount without cutting into my living expenses, although I did sacrifice it from the amount I set aside as savings. I judged that my future prospects would be sufficiently enhanced by an Obama presidency as to be more than worth a sacrifice of this magnitude. Heck, I perceived the entertainment and intellectual value alone of following the campaign to easily exceed this sum.

At the risk of seeming insensitive, $200 is not a lot of money, and I don't think that I should be considered anything other than a small donor.

Finally, while "small donors" under this definition contributed only slightly more on a percentage basis to Obama as compared to Bush, the total dollar amount from small donors was much, much higher. It's just that Obama also raised unprecedented sums from larger donors (including myself apparently).

[eden4barack08]

Oh you BIG donor you! Just think of all the influence you'll yield in Washington now!

[liminy]

This article is all about semantics! I also was able to donate in small increments when my budget would allow, but I guarantee I am no "big donor." This article is decieving. So many of us on tight budgets donated small amounts as we could, even though it was difficult. The author of this article is trying to make us believe that we are "big donors?" By the standards he uses, these definitions and this article are meaningless. Don't let him fool you. There are also 100 pennies in a dollar. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it...

[LeftRight]

Shouldn't there have already been a rule in place to know this stuff????

[Tommygun2146]

Tell me what's improper or illegal about accepting campaign donations in excess of $200 and then we can start talking about making rules against it. Of course, the same rules would have to apply to McSame/Palin, who received a much higher percentage of their contributions from large donors. Unless you can come up with something illegal or improper, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing.

[LeftRight]

I didn't say that anything was illegal, I simply was saying that the FEC has a rule that anyone who donates more than $200 is supposed to be reported as a donor. So since the rule is there, shouldn't it apply to anyone who donates more than $200 in increments??

[clsmithj]

HuffPo, don't ever post news articles from LA Times and claim it as news worthy.

[zippitydoo]

it is a blog....no­t a news article and you might want to read the bloggers bio

[Sabreen60]

WOW! The tr0//s are over this irrelevant story. I am a large donor. I gave about $450.00 over several months. Gee, I've got some programs that I'm sure 0ba-ma will fund and enact since I gave so much money to his campa!gn.

Look, only the re-thugs will care or buy this story. Everybody else won't give a $h!t.

[Tommygun2146]

Yes, isn't it amazing how they keep coming up with stories that sound as if they are saying something illegal or improper has been done, without coming up with any actual charges and ignoring the fact that McSame/Palin did the exact same things.

[Rashomon]

I would recommend everyone read the study here:
http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216
It's not written as some kind of indictment but rather as a way to show how impressive Obama's campaign was while noting that it wasn't all small donors.
Note that:
Obama raised $119 million from small donors.
McCain raised $22 million from small donors.

Small donors did play a big part just not the only part.

A couple examples from the report:
"...an estimated 2.5 million undisclosed donors gave a cumulative average of about $62 each. His 2.5 million small donors would be in the same general range as CFI's published estimate for the number of small donors who gave to all candidates combined in 2004."

"Obama raised 27% of his money from people whose aggregated contributions fell in a middle range ($201-$999). McCain's mid-range supplied 20% of his total. Bush received only 13% from this group."

The report concludes:
"The fact is that Obama's financial juggernaut broke records at all contribution levels. The reality does not match the myth, but the reality itself was impressive­."

[Thomas777]

Great link Rasomon. If anyone is really interested in knowing where the money really came from, to to it!

[boophus]

I guess by thier measurement I am a large donor since I donated over $200. It should be noted that I donated in small donations of $25 and $50 multiple times as i could afford it. So while it may be factual to say no more small donors than for the shrub, in reality there were many like me who over periods of months actually were small donors that added up to more than thier designated limit of $200. It would be more interesting if they could demonstrate the income levels of those donating.

Mathematically, if you are careful you can select a grouping or cut off line that makes any point you wish to make. There is an excellant book called "lying with statistics". As for non-partisan, I don't believe that since the author takes a snipe at Obama supporters. But most of all I don't really care. The corporate lobbyists are just pissed off he raised more then they did.

[LeftRight]

$200-$500 is still a small donor, but above the $200 figure they are supposed to inform the FEC about the person donating..­..

[MizFlagPin]

Another skewed GOP-inspired, dung report.

Last time I heard the FEC was unable to accomodate the large upload of donor information from O'bama's campaign. Now the right wing faux intellectuals are analyzing the portion of data available to them. As added protection, they planted a double untruth in the article which was -- Dubya did as well as O.

Geez, now I understand why so many of them support the anti-intellectual and anti-educationist S'arah P'alin . . . she represents their very best.

[Thomas777]

Here's what is alarming about this article -- this statement here:

"The reported numbers show that Obama actually received 80% more money from large donors (those giving $1,000 or more total) than from small donors."

It's likely that most sources of campaign donations that are above $1000 are NOT individuals. These donors would be Businesses and Special Interest groups.

So, are we going to have another bought-off tool in the White House? Or are we going to get our desperately needed Change Agent?

We will soon see.

[doctorwang]

"It's likely that most sources of campaign donations that are above $1000 are NOT individual­s."

Any facts to substantiate that claim?

[AlwaysaLiberal]

Exactly and how did they get these "reported" numbers?

[Thomas777]

Perhaps these web sites can help:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/more-on-average.html

http://www.neoformix.com/2008/AverageCampaignDonationByOccupation.html

I had also heard it reported many times in recent weeks that the average Obama donor had given about $85 *total*.

[boophus]

WRONG Assumption. My sweet and I are not a businesses or special interest groups but small donors who's total campaign donations added up. I can remember several times donating just because of some outrageous thing said or done by McCain, Palin or right wing hate radio JackAs.

I am getting so tired of the continually negativity and looking for the dark side now that the election is over. PE BHO is not in office yet for crying out loud.

[yawymsti]

Bundled money? Good way to buy an election. The Left in a frenzy because they've been used. No checks in the mail, no filled tanks, maybe a mortgage payment. Gates stays. Who is so new that they'll bring all that Change he spoke of during the campaign? Two blacks so far. What gives? Hope and Change, such a wispy thing to Obama. His lack of experience requires that he surround himself with the old guard. What a joke.

[doctorwang]

Wow. Thanks for opening my eyes. Why didn't you warn me before the election? Oh well, too late now. Maybe you can start warning us prior to the next election. Can you come back...say­, in about three years or so?

[Tommygun2146]

You're right - just ask McSame. He accepted millions in bundled money, most of it from registered lobbyists.

[CompliantMedia]

There has been a barrage of critcs - some from both parties - about how Obama can institute change when he is surrounding himself with so many Washingon insiders?

Frankly, they are missing the point. Change can be about committment to a different way of doing things. It can (and will) have little to do what the staff has done in the past.

I can hear these same people in a meeting with the Miami Dolphins' owner saying, "If you really want to change this team for godsake don't bring in a General Manager with ties to the past like Bill Parcells!"

Meanwhile there are those of us insisting, "If he's a leader and he has the instincts to make the changes we need let's hire him."

Dolphins Record
2007 pre-Parcells 1-15
2008 post-Parcells 6-5

You may state that the head of a nation is no comparison to the head of an NFL team. But if it is about commitment to better ideas at the top - is it really?

BTW, I am not a Dolphins or a Parcells fan. But the turn around is impressive,

[pthesmith]

How does the study account for people who gave the maximum contribution in small increments over 7 or 8 months? It doesn't! It just redefines them as "large" donors. This methodological problem allows the data to misrepresented.

According to the study, I'm a "large" donor!
Yeah right!

[pupbayer]

You gave what you gave. It doesn't matter how many increments you gave it in. That's not the issue. The issue is the TOTAL you gave. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

[Tommygun2146]

And if it does not violate any law, how is it an "issue"?

[Tommygun2146]

Is there any relevance to this story? I mean, the pubs are dancing around saying "you see, you see, he got most of his money from rich people rather than poor people, so that makes him worse than McSame who was financed by billionaires and lobbyists", but unless there is some kind of violation of campaign finance laws - like there was when McSame used public funding as collateral to get a loan and then once he got his loan, returned the public funds - or evidence of a quid pro quo with private donors or industry the way it was proven with Bush/Cheney, there is simply no there there, just another way for the pubs to imply some kind of wrongdoing when there has been none.

[kennyfasugbe]

This is a stupid story. The writer of the article is guilty of the same accusation he is leveling against the Obama campaign. He is cherry picking that which justifies his ridiculous and salacious story. While he defines small donors as those who gave a total contribution of less than 200.00, he refuses to tell us how many donors actually contributed to the campaign, and then relates that number against Bush, whom he calles the republican devil?
It is an open knowledge that, being the campaign of the masses, many gave more than 200.00 total contribution to the campaign (primary and general election combined), and would not see themselves on the same level as special interest or big donors. I gave more than 200.00 total contribution, and yes, I am unemployed. Shoot me!

[Bitsko]

Boy, what an unoriginal article, based on information that has been publicly available and discussed incessantly all year long. Does it take longer for news to reach LA?

[Bitsko]

Sorry, forgot to ask if this perpetually debt-ridden rag is looking to sell some papers and get some attention from this non-story?

[monicaangela]

You're right, be sure to run a scan to get the cookies off your computer after going to the site.

[rzan1]

What a slap in the face this "study" is to those of use who gave faithfully 5 to 100 dollars per month to Obama's campaign because we so believed in his candidacy. I don't regret a penny of it, and I am proud that Obama won with the help of our donations.

[AndrewInToronto]

I do not buy this 'study' either. It reminds me of the parable of the person who in going to the temple to tithe and while it did not make a large sound in the brass containers (as the rich person did), still gave from what she had. I sense that with the Obama campaign this was seen over and over both in terms of the total number of donors and the number of repeated donations from people who gave what they could at the time, even if it cut into a monthly budget. I know that were I an American citizen, I would be doing the exact same thing because Obama's campaign inspired such hope for a better future.