Obama's small donor base image is a myth, new study reveals

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.

In fact, Obama's base of small donors was almost exactly the same percent as George W. Bush's in 2004 -- Obama had 26% and the great Republican satan 25%. Obviously, this is unacceptable to current popular thinking.

But the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute just issued a detailed study of Obama's donor base and its giving. And that's what the Institute found, to its own surprise.

"The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said CFI's executive director Michael Malbin, admitting that his organization also was fooled. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."

Adding up the total contributions from the same small individuals (in terms of dollar amounts, not their height), the Institute discovered that rather than the 50+% commonly....

...reported throughout the campaign, only 26% of Obama's contributions through last August and only 24% through Oct. 15 came from people whose total donations added up to less than $200.

The key word there being "total."

It comes down to which definition of "small donor" you accept:

Someone who donated to the Obama campaign by scraping together $199, period.

Or someone who donated $199 to the Obama campaign several times, perhaps totaling close to the $4,600 legal limit for the primary and general elections. In aggregate, that would vault him/her out of the small donor category that was so useful to the political campaign's public relations campaign portraying the donor base as about two times as broad as it really was.

The reported numbers show that Obama actually received 80% more money from large donors (those giving $1,000 or more total) than from small donors.

Through the Democratic National Convention, the Institute estimates, Obama received $119 million from genuine small donors, an impressive sum, to be sure.

But not as impressive as the $210 million he'd raised by then from bundlers and large donors.

"After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC)," the CFI study says, "it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated."

Now, we'll see how broad-based news coverage of this real reality is.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Speaking of money, you don't need any to register here for automatic cellphone alerts of each new Ticket item. Or to sign up here for automatic RSS feeds of each item. Kindle subs also available through Amazon.

Photo credit: Associated Press

Comments

[Rezko'ism and then some...]

Do you think the senate's ethics comity will hold hearings
on this shocking breach of the public trust ? And can we
count on the liberal media to investigate this scandal or
will they give us another under the carpet censure ?

[MandyW]

Malcolm's headline is justified only if you consider anybody who donated more than $200 total during a campaign that lasted nearly two years to be a "large" contributor.

The CFI study breaks down FEC statistics into three categories: less than $200; $201-$999; and more than $1000, and deems only the over-$1000 donors as "large" contributors.

Someone with a different ax to grind might have highlighted different facts from the CFI report and written a story something like this:

"Barack Obama is the first Presidential candidate who received more than half his campaign contributions from people giving $999 or less. They were the source of 53% of his funding, compared to only 41% of the funding for John McCain's campaign..

"Both Republicans and Democrats increased their small donations since the last Presidential election. In 2004, John Kerry got 44% of his funding from donors giving $999 or less, while Bush got only 39% from that source."

Such a reporter also might have shared an amusing anomaly (or typo) in Bush's statistics from 2004. Bush's total donor percentages add up to only 98%: 25% less than $200, 13% 201-$999, 60% over $1000. Since rounding variance in three subtotals would account for a maximum of only 1.5%, that means that 0.5% of his contributions apparently came from nowhere. Nice trick!! {g}

[SD]

So, I never contributed to any campaign before and ended up with a total of $1000 over almost 2 years and I am a "large donor"? This article is a weak analysis that misses the point on purpose. There are a lot of people like me who gave small amounts and have nothing to do with big donors and influence. Lame attempt to discredit a piece of what I was part owner of.

[eweb]

i will second nirad's request for the total number or donors.

also, consider the number of people who ordinarily would never give to a campaign, and suddenly felt inspired to give more than $200. next, how about those donors who probably should be saving that $250 for groceries and heating bills, but decided this election was more important.

I think the $200 mark for what constitutes small donors is way too low. how much do Americans spend on junk food? alcohol? I think it's about time we started investing as much time and money into our politics as we do this other crap.

[Ann Worth]

I'd like to see more about the repeat donors, who gave a small amount each time. A lot of people thought it really mattered what happened this time and kept giving. The Obama campaign was really good at sending constant updates and nudging people to contribute as events unfolded.
I gave $245 over the course of the campaign. Each time $5, $20, and $25 was what I could afford. I figured it was worth some sacrifice for the country's long term health.

[Apogealy]

I think this skews the point. There were many who made multiple donations, but because we couldn't afford to make a $500 donation all at once, not because of a small commitment. Multiple donations also reflect an ongoing commitment, ongoing or renewed inspiration because of his progress towards nomination, and determination once we saw the true face of "real" American's in the opposition.

[Jessilu]

I gave a little over $1000 - in mostly $20 and $25 increments each paycheck for nearly 2 years. Does that make me some sort of BIG donor? Come on! I never gave more than $50 to any other candidate before Obama.

[Cathy]

Thee is NO such thing as an unbiased institute. They all skew their numbers to fit their agenda. I donated multiple times, kinda like paying on the installment plan...as I could afford it. Nothing sinister there.

[susan Vipond]

has it occurred to you that a lot of us gave what we could at the end of each pay period or after giving up a movie or eating out? So we gave more than once, as much and as often as we could scrape together. Does that make us a large donor? Over almost 2 years I saved and donated over 1000. It was worth it to get this country a new start. You are an idiot, and part of the reason we donated what we could.

[Martha Miller]

The standard of $199 per donor is artificially low. In December 2007, I started giving Obama $25 to $100 a month, depending on my means. I haven't added up the total amount I gave him, but it is probably around $600. This is six times the amount I ever gave another candidate. I am far from a big contributor, but I was very consistent. This standard does not measure the consistency of small contributors like me. Others I have talked to were also consistent with small amounts.

[AJL]

I'm not sure I buy the definition being used in this analysis. I am under 30, make a decent income, and have never given to a campaign before. I donated to the Obama campaign in increments of $10 to $50 (my most common donation was $25) and did so about 15 times overall. My cumulative donations over 18 months of giving was about $400. I think my behaviors reflect that of the small donor -- someone who gives in small increments based on what they can afford at a given moment. Just because my donations over the long haul added up to something more substantial does not all of the sudden make me some big donor. And I'm sure there are many more out there just like me who would also very much consider themselves small donors.

[ldb]

It still is small donors many who never donated before. Part of the reason that donors gave more and more was because we started doing it in reaction to the slander, sleaze, and slime. In my blog community, everytime we got outraged by the republican slime... we donated more money. People really stretched themselves because this election was so important to them.

[Christian]

If the $200 total is the limit for being a "small donor" than apparently I wasn't a "small donor" because I donated more than twice that over a period of two years.

However... I'm a 20-year-old college sophomore with no job. I don't exactly consider myself to be some kind of financial elite. I gave my money out of a genuine desire to see Obama become President.

So if that's your definition, fine, because a lot of Obama supporters gave more than $200 out of their dedication to the campaign.

[MargaretO]

What a seriously misleading article. Most of us consider ourselves small donors. We donated $5, $10 to $100 at a time, but did it several times throughout the 2 years of this campaign, which adds up to over $200. Most of us have never donated to a political campaign, before. In fact, personally, from people in my every day real life, I have never known so many people who made a point to make a donation this year who have never donated before.

Trying to take this grassroots effort and make it seem as if it is "business as usual" is just wrong.

[mike]

ur assumptions may be wrong, i'm a 1st time donor to a presidential campaign starting in april 07 to obama....i gave a total of $1,500 directly to the campaign and another $500 to local efforts...the $1,500 directly given was in $50, $100, $200 increments....i received thousands of requests to donate from the campaign..from barack, from michelle, from david... most of my contributions were in the primary and i had stopped at $1250 by aug 08 - ( i figured i'd done my part , time for others to help) and then in oct i got one more email from'barack' reminding me I was one of the 1st 100,000 donors ( i personally think a lot higher than that) and he got another $250 out of me...that is real money to me...and barack represents real change.....the campaign created an incredible social network through the web site and groups and through emails and text messages... i was getting 200 emails a day belonging just to a single group..i just gave money...others put their lives on hold and gave therir time....do not underestimate the transformational nature of the Obama campaign

[Kia]

Who cares if the small donors didn't contribute the bulk of money to Obama's campaign. The simple fact that anyone donated to his campaign during a time of financial restraint is remarkable. I donated.......

[Carlos Jean-Gilles]

You can always interpret the numbers in a way that conveys the point of view that you want to get across. In this piece, your objective is obviously to denigrate the fact that Obama has had more small donors than any other presidential candidate in history. I know that that is true because I was one of Obama's small donors.

Carlos Jean-Gilles
Saint Louis, MO

[Frances Smith]

Gee whiz, I'm startled to discover that I am a big donor! I gave about $150 per month from February through November. I guess I am now a fat cat. Please, give me a break!

[Terry Hildebrand]

This article is itself misleading. Political fundraising is a numbers game. There are always affluent donors wanting to suck up to potential political candidate winners no matter what their views or agendas, and affluent donors have the disposable income to contribute the maximum allowed. Just one donor who gives $2300 in the general election balances 23 new small donors who contribute just $100 each.

For Obama to have motivated so many new small contributors is truly impressive, even if this does not appear to make such a difference in the donor totals if examined purely on a percentage of the whole basis. The truth is, Obama motivated donors of all sizes to contribute and did not need to rely on the big bundlers and donors, although it was a given he would get a lot of them any way.

[cougarkj]

Counting repeat donors as large donors almost isn't fair. I know many people who donated over two hundred, but could only afford to give a little bit at a time. I worked with abused housewives who don't make enough to live on their own who may have donated more than two hundred over the course of the campaign-$10-$25 at a time. These people were his grassroots support. No article you write to drum up a contrived controversy can take away from that.

[Paul]

I'm sure a second study could show that infact small doners did contribute 50%+ of total contributions. Studies are tricky and you have to see details of analysis next to one another to make a true comparison. This study by itself proves nothing

[Chapman]

I happen to be one of the small donors who gave multiple times throughout the primary & general in increments of $50 every 2 weeks. So that makes me a big money donor??? Why do you people insist on bending over backward to try & find something wrong with Obama after burying your heads in the sand for 8 years to accomodate the Court Jester???
This is a pathetic hit piece that does back flips to try & paint Obama's campaign as nefarious...

[texas]

what i'm guessing, though, is that a lot of people who would have been small donors became "large" donors by giving many more small donations than they ever expected themselves to. i've never given to a presidential campaign, and i started out with 60 then 30 then 25, then 130--or some such. i think a lot of people did, and THAT *was* unusual.

[Me]

This is a catchy headline I give you credit for that. However its all down hill from there. Cant you just let it go?
I mean seriously its over. He didnt get money from small donors because small donors gave to often to be considered small donors? LMAO wow
You guys are in a sad state. Its kinda funny watching the unraveling of the republican party. :-)
George Bush got the same amount of small donors LMAO. Good luck floating that one there guy!!!!

[robert marc]

i enthusiastically gave more then 200 dollars to obama but can be considered anything BUT a large donor or bundler. what i am was someone absolutely desperate to get bush and his ilk way the hell away from the levers of power