If McCain, like Obama, had broken his promise and opted to avoid the public campaign financing that he foisted upon us and had raised a fraction of the cash Obama has raised, there would be loud chorus of “Obscene!” emanating from the mainstream press.
At least the Washington Post reports today that the picture of Obama’s campaign as being driven by small donors is largely a myth. In “Big Donors Drive Obama’s Money Edge,” the Post notes that
Lost in the attention given to Obama’s Internet surge is that only a quarter of the $600 million he has raised has come from donors who made contributions of $200 or less, according to a review of his FEC reports. That is actually slightly less, as a percentage, than President Bush raised in small donations during his 2004 race, although Obama has pulled from a far larger number of donors….
You’re probably right, but only because the news media can’t think straight about money in politics, no matter who the candidate is.
The headline of the story says that “big donors drive” the Obama money edge. What’s a “big” donor? The Post seems to divide “big” and “small” at $200, which is the threshold at which donors to federal campaigns have to report their occupations, etc. to the campaigns and the FEC. But is someone who donates $210 really a “big” donor?
“Big” and “small” are relative concepts. Under the McCain-Feingold law, the maximum gift is $2,300 to a candidate for the general election. That might be regarded as a “big” donation in relation to the average family income. It’s not “big,” though, in relation to the donations frequently given in state and local campaigns in places where there aren’t contribution limits. It’s only one-tenth the size of the maximum contribution allowed in California, where there are contribution limits.
Neither is it “big” in relation to the amount of money either of the candidates has raised for this election. If Obama had raised his entire $600 million in maximum $2,300 contributions, each donor’s share would represent about 1/250,000th of the total.
The fact that Obama is raising similar proportions of his contributions from those giving more than $200 as George Bush did is hardly surprising. I think any economist or statistician would tell you that, when people have unequal resources, a disproportionate (and predictable) amount of the total spent/given will come from those with higher incomes and more to give. Obama can’t repeal the power laws. But he has vastly increased the total number of donors, both big and small. That’s no myth, nor is it a small achievement.
What the press –– and you –– seem not to understand is that, within the McCain-Feingold system, there are really no such things as “big” donors, if what you mean by big is that the individual bulks so large as to have a corrupting influence on the White House. If you look at OpenSecrets.org, the guy with the greatest aggregate contributions to the Obama effort — $369K given by himself, his spouse, dependent children to the Obama campaign, Democratic party and PACS- gave only three times as much as my neighbors contributed at the Obama event at our neighborhood community center in one evening last month.
The real money story in this presidential election is that the old money story about fat cats (which has always been hyped beyond its true relevance) may be ready for retirement. Obama has shown that it’s possible to have a well-funded campaign financed by donations no larger than those permitted under the strict McCain-Feingold rules. Under the current rules, if “big” money is going to have an undesirable or corrupting effect in presidential elections, it is going to have to come through independent committees operating outside the McCain-Feingold system, where individuals and organizations can plunk down as much cash as they like. And that’s not happening much this year, probably because both candidates have discouraged 527 committees and because Obama has succeeded within the system that McCain helped create.
“But he has vastly increased the total number of donors, both big and small. That’s no myth, nor is it a small achievement.”
Mark,
I think that’s true, but because he is not releasing the names of the small donors, and the bulk of the money they have contributed has been in “bundles” gathered by, well, bundlers, many of whom could be described as the new “large contributors,” the significance of their numbers is somewhat attenuated.
It also appears to be true that his numbers of fraudulent contributors has also reached historic proportions, a practice that has been encouraged and invited by his campaign’s conscious refusal to screen credit card contributions for fraud. See the report on this in PajamasMedia on Friday:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-fundraising-fraud/2/
Also worth seeing, if in doubt:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/23/john-galt-donating-to-obama-this-year-too-apparently/
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/276395.php
And from here —
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_illegal_donations/2008/10/21/142761.html —
Actually, there may be more consistency here than meets the eye. “Mickey Mouse,” “Daffy Duck,” and similar names have turned up among ACORN’s new registrations (gathered, perhaps, with the help of the $800,000 the Obama campaign gave ACORN), and so it’s not surprising those characters would contribute to his campaign….