- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
Obama's Money Myth
A new study by the Campaign Finance Institute dispels the notion that small donors (i.e., under $200 total) were a dominant factor in Barack Obama's fundraising:
Although an unusually high percentage (49%) of Obama's funds came in discrete contributions of $200 or less (see Table 3), only 26% of his money through August 31 (and 24% of his funds through October 15, according to the most recent FEC reports) came from donors whose total contributions aggregated to $200 or less. Obama's 26% compares to 25% for George W. Bush in 2004, 20% for John Kerry in 2004, 21% for John McCain in 2008, 13% for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and 38% for Howard Dean in 2004.
In other words, the media-fueled image of Obama relying predominantly on small donors was actually the result of multiple contributions by people who might be described as "big donors on the installment plan." Nonetheless, the relative lack of grassroots support for John McCain's campaign is apparent in the CFI study, which finds that McCain got 41% of of his fundraising from those who gave less than $1,000 total, compared to 53% for Obama.
(Via LA Times and Instapundit.)
Comments
Leave a Comment
Bob| 11.29.08 @ 4:22PM
Just as large taxpayers account for most of the income tax paid, the same is true for campaign donations. However, you overplay the "media-fueled" image part a bit as Obama did bring in many more donors than anyone previously. This is from the study:
"We know less about people who stayed at $200 or below because $201 is the trigger for FEC disclosure. Obama's staff says that more than 3 million people contributed to his campaign. We cannot verify this number independently but we consider it to be plausible."
"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."
"None of these findings denies the importance of either Obama's appeal to repeat donors or his innovative use of online social networking tools to interweave appeals for contributions and critically important campaign volunteers. In particular, Obama did attract repeaters who have not been part of the traditional large-dollar, reception-attending fundraising crowd. 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."
So the truth is somewhere in-between. He had, by far, more small and repeat donors than anyone in history, but he still received a huge amount from large donors. I find it interesting how the facts here have been messaged.
ruth| 11.29.08 @ 5:56PM
Unfortunately for us Obama is a myth.
Captain America| 11.29.08 @ 6:48PM
I didn't donate, was saving my money for the commemorative plates and coins and stuff.
Spicy Joker| 11.30.08 @ 3:39PM
Speaking of money, how many more months until Obama replaces Lincoln on the penny, considering the media is already comparing the two?
ruth| 11.30.08 @ 6:46PM
Pennies are small potatoes: I'm waiting for them to bust out the dynamite for Mt. Rushmore.
Alan Brooks| 12.1.08 @ 2:41AM
and for 2012 he'll have an even bigger campaign chest, maybe $.5 billion.
you guys underestimated Obama, and you'll do it again in 2011. you'll nominate a loser. Just as libs are softheaded, you guys are chumps for Doles and McCains.
How old will the 2012 Republican war hero candidate be? 70?71?
ruth| 12.1.08 @ 6:04PM
I agree that the GOP is the stupid party, but I think Sarah will only be 48 years old. How do you fight ACORN?