I also wanted to point out that there are many NEW donors to the Obama campaign.
The non insiders, not a part of the party politics, those who have been disengaged or engaged from a distance. I assume some out there are giving big amounts but many are giving these small amounts.
These small amounts is a first step. I am new to the whole campaign thing and started with small amounts. I think my first political contribution EVER, to Obama's campaign, was $10. You will see many profiled on his site like that. We have seen military people give $5, seniors, college kids, and others.
So far around $150 from me and depending on the month and circumstances I may be able to give more. I know of two people same as I and still giving when can.
These folks are not just giving $5 they are giving what they can. They know it is not alot but they BELIEVE that others out there, like themselves will TOO. I also bet they will give also give him their VOTE. Most of these people are not trying to gain influence- that is something they do not like about politics!
A son of a man who came to America for school and a single mother that was absent for some of his life. The family had public assistance at points and he had a step father.
It was not a family connection or name or wealth that got him where he is. Hard work, determination, and HOPE. It is the American dream. This is what they are supporting.
Big Donors Continue To Rule In 3rd Quarter
The following piece was produced by the Huffington Post's OffTheBus project.
The presidential third quarter fundraising numbers are in, and as predicted big donors are dominating, according to the Campaign Finance Institute.
Democratic candidates Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) collected an impressive 32 and 45 percent of their contributions, respectively from donors giving $200 or less--although that still means the majority of their individual cash came from big donors.
Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) got just 14 percent of her individual cash from small donors; former Mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani (R), 10 percent, and Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), 18 percent. Newcomer former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) got a third of his cash--33 percent--from small donors.
These percentages are higher for most of these candidates than what they raised from small donors in the first two quarters, when Obama raised 24 percent; Edwards, 23 percent; Clinton eight percent; Giuliani, six percent; and Romney, nine percent. That's pretty typical, as early money in presidential races tends to be the biggest money.
Another thing to keep in mind: these candidates vary widely in how much they have raised overall in the third quarter, with Obama and Clinton far in the lead. So Obama raised $6.5 million from small donors to Edwards' $3.1 million. And he collected nearly $2 for every $1 that Clinton raised from small donors.
Meanwhile, candidates who are not considered to be in the front of the pack because of their lackluster fundraising often raise much larger percentages of their cash from small donors. On one end of the political spectrum, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), for example, collected 67 percent of his individual cash from small donors, while Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), on the other, got 85 percent of his individual cash from such donors.
This pattern, however, doesn't hold true for all the candidates who are considered to be running behind. For example, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the chairman of the powerful Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, got just eight percent of his individual contributions from small donors. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), collected 18 percent of his individual cash from small donors.
The analysis is even more stark when you look at the big picture. For the full cycle to date, just 19 percent of the contributions to all the candidates--$71.3 million out of $371 million--has come in chunks of $200 or less. Here's another way to think about it. This year presidential candidates have collected about $45 million more from small donors than they did over the same time period in the 2000 elections. But they've gotten $138 million more from donors giving at least $1,000.
One obvious reason that candidates are forced to rely on big contributors is the ailing presidential public financing program. Small donors' power is enhanced in "Clean Elections" systems in states and cities that have full public financing of elections.
Click here to see the figures on candidates' small dollar donations.
Note: This post is a corrected version of one originally posted on October 16.
Read more OffTheBus coverage here.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The rate of contributions to political campaigns seems to be consistent with the rates towards overall charitable giving; 10% of donors provide 90% of the funds. There's something very positive though about politicians who are raising larger shares from smaller donations.
The Presidency is already up for sale. As the front runners pull ahead the rest become more and more desperate and they stop pulling their punches and start to cannibalize each other and pander to whatever base they have. It is sickening to watch. This is the system we have right now and until we come up with a better way of choosing our President this is what we have to deal with. We may want campaign financing reform but did you ever wonder why campaign reform cannot make it out of Congress? Probably because they don't want it to change. Posing and posturing will not change anything, only solid action.
Why not lobby Congress heavily to create a federal clean elections system law to cover all federal elections, including the presidential election.
e mail all your reps. tell them to vote on it offer them a bribe lobbyists do. its legal for them because they are ALL above the law
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56305
Hillery kisses up to Hollywood Mogals.
Until changes are made about how campaigns are run----I personally am sick of hearing complaints about the funding.
All the candidates are faced with a challenge being if they want to be front-runners they need contributions. Bottom line.
big drug/insurance is more than willing to foot the bill of the next puppet.
Well Hillary seems to be so upset she has sent her hacks out there to attack MYBO and this morning we small donors and large ones can't access my.barackobama.com hmmm
That's an excellent proposal, MrLion! Why not just go ahead and auction off the Presidency itself? In fact, isn't that exactly what they propose to be doing?
So we don't need to bother to cast any ballots. (They'll be counted by computers which will not give us any receipt nor leave any sort of paper-trail, so of course we may as well not bother.) We all just log-in and watch the last-minute "snipers" as they converge on the bids in the last few seconds. Whoever spends the most money gets to be President.
Isn't that the American way?
Ahem.
No, I didn't think so either.
So why, exactly, is the media so darned impressed ... except for the very-obvious reason that "all that money" happens to go to THEM?
I see Obama's star is fading and fading fast. People must have come to their senses, got over the "new" kid, and relized we really need an experienced president. I also see Hillary had her best quarter, beating everyone. People must have come to their senses. I know I did, that's why I made my first donation to Hillary. I'm glad to be in that 13%.
I see Hillary camp is NOT happy to be in the lead.
I also hear, when canvassing, that she does NOT have all these committed caucus people.
What experience does she have? We do not have the presidential papers and healthcare FAILED.
Obama has MORE donors, more enthusiasm out there (he draws the largest crowds), and OH actually he got stuff done while in the IL house (like- HEALTHCARE for kids, ETHICS).
Any gamblers out there- I would put money on the underdog.
Hillary & Obama have each raied $70 million.
With Hillary you will get a continuation of Bush fascist policies.
With Obama you will get Bush lite.
Big biz is calling the shots.
BTW with Giuliani you will get Benito Mussolini.
you obviously don't live in New York Hillary is for sale to a good home big insurance has the high bid right now at 870000$ don't vote because she's a women because sex is not a question its a statement.
A modest proposal: In 2012, both parties should auction off the presidential nomination on eBay. That would cut out all the middlemen.
eBay itself is a middleman organization. So is Google, MSN and Yahoo.
Loading comments…
Most Popular 2
Posted October 16, 2007 | 02:00 PM (EST)