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

[LeftLeanWing]

Study Proves that an Article Titled:

" Study: Obama's Small Donor Base Image A Myth "

Is itself A Myth.

[NotMcCain]

Repubs try, but fail again, to discount Obama's remarkable campaign.

Fortunately, historians will correctly credit the amazing phenomenon of individual donors making a sustained commitment to give not once but several times (even monthly for over a year for some) to a presidential candidate.

It was an amazing thing (and I could never have given as much in "one lump sum" as I did with $40 budgeted for "Obama" every month. Which IS the point of his "army of small donors".)

Redefining "small donors" as anyone giving a total of under $200??? Nice try, wingnuts. ROFL.

[PennP]

Their conclusions require accepting the definition of "small donor" as giving under $200, which does not make sense under the circumstances. For one, this campaign ran hard and strong for over 12 months, so there was more meaningful fundraising time to factor in. Second, the Internet facilitated much more giving, both in number of donors and frequency of donations. Third, this particular contest elicited much more passion from voters than recent elections, and this impacted donations. Federal guidelines notwithstanding, a study of campaign donors and donation should use a more fair standard.

Barring recalculation at a figure like $690--which is 15% of the legal giving limit--a fairer threshold for evaluation in this election would be the $1,000 line already included in the figures. Obama raised 53% of his contributions from that sector, to McCain's 41%, Kerry's 44%, and GWB's 38%. This sector accounted for 67% of Obama's revenue compared to McCain's 47%, Kerry's 57%, and GWB's 43%. Using the more reasonable $1K limit, Obama's small-donor claims remain intact.

We need a “reality check” on the $200 “small donor” definition. The $1K ceiling may be too high, but for a year-long race, holding the small-donor ceiling to a mere 4.35% of the legal giving limit of $4,600 seems as inadequate and unfair as a $75M public campaign financing limit in the face of a billion-dollar race.

[Alaskan4alaska]

The right wing seems to be eager to lie to everyone, even if they don't appear to be very good at it. Is that all? Is that the best that they have?

[donaldw6]

A $1K ceiling is much too low in Obama's case. However much was contributed by private individuals, up to the limit of $4600, should be legitimately included. Separate out how much came from bundling, and then you have something relevant. This entire article deals with donations in a completely specious manner.

[OriginalScreenName]

This is a bunch of crap? I'm somehow a bigtime donor because I gave more than $200 through monthly payments of $30 over 17 months? That's less than a cell phone plan and somehow I'm a big donor.

This study is full of sh*t.

[CheshireCat2]

At any rate, he employed a great campaign and caused many to get involved.

[loria]

Agreed. I gave many times over the course of a year. Maybe my donations during the primary and the general came to $1000. Those donations were all $25 at time. I was the only donor in my immediate family. I think we still fit the definition of small donors. I can't tell you how many people I know were just like me. Regular people giving what they could when they could. But, according to this study I am not a small donor even though I couldn't really afford to even give $100 at a time. This is complete bs.

[stayinsouth1981]

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Darling.. LOL

[HC4BO]

Flawed Logıc ...

What if I had to scrape to donate small amounts over a progressed length of time ... ?

I AM a Small Donor ....

[allonfla]

whatever makes the repubs sleep better at night. we will just have to kick their butts again in 2010 and 2012.

[pir anha]

and of course that "insightful" analysis comes from a right-wing blogger.

if one had paid attention, one would know that a lot of people -- who don't necessarily have a lot of money, and for whom 1,000-2,300 is a significant chunk of their income -- donated in drips and drabs, but kept giving throughout the campaign, as they could. to call them now "large" donours because that fits the anti-obama narrative better is ridiculous -- spin as usual, but still ridiculous. there is no comparison between people who scrounged to get together the maximum possible for a campaign over the duration because that campaign kept speaking to them, and people who dole it out without having to blink, or PACs.

but go ahead and underestimate the huge number of people who, for the first time ever, donated their time, money, and effort to a political campaign. go ahead and be bitter because you don't have the excitement of that tremendous grassroots movement.

[oldleftcoastdude]

there's the key...time, money and effort..... and firdt time donors and volunteers. Has there been a study on that?....not by the right wing, I bet.

[drayntx]

For goodness sake.. I thought this story was reporting some nefarious behavior by the Obama campaign. I donated $50.00 per month but I consider myself as a small donor. Surely the time and effort spent on this study could have gone to a better use.

[spartanmom]

Me too.

I gave what I could in little bits. Sometimes as little as $10.

[Pancake]

same here.

[hotstuff]

a large number of my family donated $25 to $200 a month. Right there is a good junk, considering were about 5 family large with step/half's etc. to the tune of 331 family members.Never/gave/before.

[CheshireCat2]

AS predicted, another O aberration, just one of many.

[jcwtts1]

give me a break. do some basic math....

[loria]

Numbers can say anything depending on who is interpreting them. This study doesn't hold water. The election lasted two years and the primary went to every state and territory. So, if they want to believe that those of us who started donating $10 to $25 before the first primary, and continued to donate through election day, large donors, they can just believe it. Most of us know different. We donated what we could and volunteered a lot. We are a part of the small donor masses.

[loria]

If you call $10 to $25 at a time over the course of almost a year for a total of $600, a big donor, then I am one. Too bad I don't feel like one. I wish I could donate $2300 in one chunk, but that could never happen in my house (we don't even do $100 at time).

It should feel better to be a big donor.

[bygollymissmolly]

Nope, just some right wing blogger cherry picking facts and making up his own threshold for a "small donor" vs a "big donor".

[TheImpaler]

There is no need to be apprehensive. Big donors, medium donors and small donors, who cares? We all won. The fact is that the guy is our new President. He happens to be brilliant and we happen to need someone like that at the wheel. Anyone cares to study as to who McCain's donors were?

[arvay]

Who cares????

Policy follows the money. If, indeed, Obama is mostly financed by the big-money people, then we can expect his policies to protect their interests. Let's remember that Robert Rubin, one of his Clintonesque advisers, headed Citibank when it profited mightily from the sub prime mortgages that triggered the economic crisis. A bad sign that he's on Obama's team, he ought to be indicted, not consulted.

The most pessimistic interpretation of this is that OBama would be yet another pawn of the monied class, and because of his race would effectively divide progressives.

Let's see where this goes.

If Obama turns out to be a standard bought politician, the US is in for a really rough ride, because we need radical change.

[laurinek]

I'll tell you what I voted for when I voted for "change". Competence, intelligence, wisdom, not arrogance and ignorance. That is what I've seen so far and I'll take it.

[Thomas777]

Ah, good. Someone finally addresses the most important point. Most of the money that got Obama elected came from Big Business and special interests. Of course they own him to a large extent. But if he allows these groups to influence him, it won't work out.

I don't like being a pessimist this early, but there are already some signs (from his cabinet picks) that the monied class and special interests are still going to be shaping policy going forward. This would not be the change we need right now, because what we need now is a *serious* reform of a tremendous amount of corruption in our financial system and our government.

Yes, radical change -- and someone with the guts and independence to deliver it.

[TheImpaler]

It took a coalition of forces to elect Obama. Not everyone's dreams are going to come through 100%. (I hope you did not think you voted for Pedro from Napoleon Dynamite). No one is going to get everything but hopefully everyone is going to get something. I think that is progress and that is what I voted for.

[tedbear]

The point of this "study" is what? A better question is why this is taking up space in anybody's mind, other than those who might use it in another campaign in the future.

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

The point is to make us think that a) Obama is beholden to the fatcats, and b) he's lied to us.

[DinSea]

Small donors - is it EACH donation or the total? Come on!
Our country is in crisis - we need to stop feeding fear & hate!
We need to UNITE people - not feed division.
Articles like this belong in the comptroller's office - not on HP.

Stop cannibalizing our country - feeding us cheap gimmicks and then printing out "Uh-oh" articles. Stop looking for a bridge to blow up; the rest of us are trying to BUILD them.

Do something to HELP. Start being part of the solution, OK?

[Roses]

This study is what it is. However, the analysis of the analysis is terribly skewed. When I read it, I thought 'what agenda do they have'? Upon some research and google, I found that the ones doing the "analysis" were conservative apologists. Who'd a thunk????
Trouble is.....many people, (my husband for one) read that it was a "non-partisan" group that conducted the study. Problem was, the ones doing the "analysis" were partisan hacks affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative grouping.

[Thomas777]

Roses, you posted below, in answer to a question I posed, that you also think AEI was a significant contributor to Obama's campaign?

Why do you believe that?

[Roses]

I'm sorry that you completely misunderstood me.
I do not think that AEI was a "significant contributor to Obama's campaign", nor even a small contributor to his campaign. I think it is an organization that has at basis a conservative economic premise that supports the status quo. Michael Malbin was a member of this organization and also writes the analysis of the study discussed in this article. To me this was evidence of his agenda and is a partial explanation of the spin of this study and analysis.
As Ben Smith points out in his blog or Politico, the question of buying "access" to the political candidate is the important one to consider. I doubt very much if $200 buys one much "access" to Obama.

[Cinnamonape]

BTW I wonder if the people who did this "study" really didn't try to do a more nuanced and critical evaluation because it was "hard". What they did was pretty simple, and quite stupid. They took the total amount of reported over $200 donations on the FEC website and then subtracted the amount donated from the TOTAL.

That's about as lazy of a "study" as one can undertake. It doesn't require any individualized assessment of higher donation levels, repeated donors at lower amounts that cumulative go to higher thresholds, looking at "new donors", or at those who donated to the National Parties or other candidates.

For example, someone who donates $200 to Obama is treated EXACTLY the same as someone who donated $4600 to Bush, spread $20,000 out to other candidates, gave $50,000 to the Republican Party, and $25,000 to various PACs. All that wealth of data is available on the FEC site, but it is 'too hard' for them to actually analyze this. They'd rather subtract one number from another and think themselves "brilliant".

That's why this study is so much crap. Getting a "result" doesn't mean that they've proved anything. Except that those who did it are lazy...

[Tonypm]

I am a man of very limited resources.I was only able to donate $75.00 in two increments.It was my first donation to any political campaign and I know it was a wise investment.