The Myth of Small Donors
Jay Mandle, an economics professor on the board of the reform group “Democracy Matters”, made this analysis of A Small Donor Democracy? He discovers that the majority of political donations under $200 still seem to come from those who are relatively well off. And so the Obama rationalization that his small donor army is comparable to a publicly financed campaign is dubious. Prosperous donors are still more influential than the poorer classes and such a system is not a reasonable substitute for a publicly financed campaign system. I had imagined that Obama’s army was mostly made up of college kids sending in $20 at a time. This data surprised me.
So now I find myself reduced to the rationalization that in spite of his flip-flop on using campaign finance for this election Obama still seems to me to be the one most likely to promote campaign and election reform once in office. McCain was the previous champion but I am concerned that he is pandering to constituents not likely to support the de-linking of freedom of speech and campaign donations. I have heard nothing that make me think that Clinton would not continue to pander to wealth.
I am re-reading “Team of Rivals” about Lincoln’s political life. And he too had to follow a very irregular path towards abolition depending on the mood of his constituents and the general public. He started off in public support of very limited rights of African Americans. Only when circumstances lined up in favorable ways was he able to move the goal forward to to almost complete emancipation. Similarly my vote for president is informed by my reading between the lines and trying to see into the heart of the candidates. So far with his bottom-up conception of his campaign, community activist and multicultural roots, and relatively non combative temperament I still lean towards Obama in spite of him doing what he needs to do to get elected.
I can’t bring myself to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “The Myth of Small Donors”
I am going to nitpick the analysis some. The small donor table #2 showing the income of the income of donors in the state legislature in 2006. This was before Barack Obama began his campaign. I think the conventional wisdom has to be abandoned regarding small donors and his campaign. He is garnering support from people who had never been involved in this process before, so to try to apply an analysis from the past and apply it to Obama's campaign is a bit illogical.
Obama has raised about $193 million…much of it in “innovative” ways to disguise its origins.
For example, last night Obama claimed that he does not accept money from “registered lobbyists”. Obama is playing with words here, as folks listening carefully might have noticed. It is technically true, but as USA Today noted:
“Obama holds fundraisers at law firms that lobby in Washington. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the campaign held five fundraisers at New York and Boston offices of three firms that lobby
“The Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference,” said a statement on the website of FactCheck.org, an affiliate of the University of Pennsylvania. “We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees.”
Obama has called his refusal to accept PAC and federal lobbyist money “a multimillion-dollar” sacrifice, but his opponents' numbers suggest otherwise. Clinton has raised about $2 million from lobbyists and PACs while McCain has taken in about $1.2 million, according to the center.
Yet Obama's 20 largest sources of money, grouped by employers, are executives from major corporations and law firms with a Washington lobbying presence — including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Google, according to the center. Clinton's and McCain's top donors include executives from some of the same companies, such as Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2…
That said, kudos to Paul for conceding that you are making a rationalization. You may well be right, and a President Obama might reverse the course of the past.
Based on the record, I am not as hopeful.
It's not a flip flop. He never promised to use campaign financing in the general election. He promised to seek a deal with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed election. There is a big difference between the two, partly because such a deal would have to include agreements to reign in the influence of groups like MoveOn and Freedom's Watch.
And Marlowe, it's a bit silly to argue that Obama should refuse money from employees of large corporations. The truth is that he has a massive donor base that effectively dilutes the influence of any single donor or group of donors.
ChrisWWW is right. Obama never promised to use public financing in the general election. One of the thing to be negotiated was the influence of 527''s.
You know, like the Swift Boaters in 2004.
I doubt any potential Democratic nominee has forgotten about that.
Thanks for backing me up George.
I'd also like to add that the goal of public financing is not to equalize the possible spending of each candidate. The goal is to limit the influence of the super rich.
If you are looking for purity, I think you'd have to go to another world to find it.
The fat cats are always going to find a back alley leading to Washington. Might as well accept that.
In the meantime, anything that will dilute their influence and minimize it is a good thing.
I'm eager to see what will hppen in the general election. That will tell us a lot, I think.
Emancipation of all slaves, or only of those in rebellious states (which currently were not under federal authority), possibly in an attempt to incite a rebellion of the slaves within the confederacy.
You're welcome in advance for a more intelligent, challenging question.
* * *
Obama's speeches are one long sound bite (as I stated when answering a call from my brother in Portland who heard his speech there, “so actual-content-free”). He is simply like the others in the race, but younger, but black rather than white; his program is almost identical to Clintons, simply packaged and offered in a different way (about which the naive, starry-eyed, dupish people gush). He appeals to many more than Clinton; that is largely all. Please try to Get A Grip and put things into proper perspective.