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

[Leilani Collins]

So my husband and I, both retirees from mid-level civil service positions who have no income other than our pensions, are considered Large Donors because we donated $250 more than once throughout the two years that the campaign ran?

My, my. Don't we feel rich now.

It's really misleading to categorize donations such as ours as coming from anything other than ordinary people who gave up something else to donate to a political campaign we felt was important.

[Penn]

Their conclusions require accepting the $200 limit as the defintion of "smalll donor," which does not make sense given the circumstances. For one, this campaign ran hard and strong for over 12 months, so there was more meaningful fundraising time to factor in. Second, the Internet facilitated much more giving, both in the number of donors and the frequency of the donations. Third, this particular contest elicited much more passion and commitment from voters than recent elections, and this increased donations. Federal guidelines notwithstanding, a nongovernmental assessment of voter behavior should be using a more fair standard.

Barring recalculation at a figure like $690--which is 15% of the legal giving limit--a more fair threshhold for evaluation in this election would be the $1,000 line already included in the figures. Obama raised 53% of his contributions from that sector, to McCain's 41%, Kerry's 44%, and GWB's 38%. This sector accounted for 67% of Obama's revenue compared to McCain's 47%, Kerry's 57%, and GWB's 43%. AFAIC, Obama's small-donor claims remain intact.

We need a reality check on the $200 limit. Two hundred bucks buys you a dinner, drinks and a show in a big city. If it could buy you four of those evenings, it might make more sense as a benchmark separating lower and higher rollers. But not now. The $1K ceiling may be too high, but for a year-long race, holding the small-donor limit to 4.35% of the legal giving limit of $4,600 seems as outdated as a $75M public campaign financing limit in the face of a billion-dollar race.

[Pat]

Both my husband and I consider ourselves "small donors". Both of us contributed many times partially out of a strong belief in the candidate and because of a well organized campaign effort to get people to donate.

Why does that negate the point that Obama influenced the average voter to join his cause, to make a difference. I know many people in the same situation, who have given more in the 2008 campaign than ever before in any election. We ARE small donors who believed we needed a change from the lunacy we have experienced for 8 years--CHANGE we can believe in. Now we have it. Leave Obama alone and stop looking for problems that do not exist.

[Ray]

What a misleading article, very poorly examined and with an agenda behind it.

[The Anti-Puma]

Give it up Alessandro, your conspiracy theories are going no where, much like the delusional pumas you follow. All of you should get used to saying President Obama over the next eight years. It's too bad you are such a f*cktard to deal with your loss.

www.yestodemocracy.com
www.rumproast.com
www.12009.org

The Anti-PUMA

[M. Maurer]

I'd just like to point out that $1,000, spread out over the length of this campaign - two years! - is $40/month. If you make much more than minimum wage, that's a minor hit. It's equal to the $10/week I used to budget for Christmas shopping when I was making $10/hour.

[LES]

This story is ridiculous.

[Barbara Hunter]

I gave $50.00 to MoveOn.org in their effort to support Obama. Wouldn't they be considered a bundler? Wouldn't I be considered a small donor? I think this journalist might have clarified just who the bundlers were and how much the average contribution they garnered amounted to. That might give us a more complete picture of where Obama's campaign contributions actually came from.

[donquijoterocket]

I always wonder how folk like Alessandro learned about hose "unmarked bills" if they are as it says undocumented? I take the position that our boy Al is just repeating something its wingnut masters taught it to say and assisting in spreading another of the wingnuts alternative reality myths.Since the mcinane/Caribou Barbie campaign had lawyers to spare to dispatch to the frozen north to help Barbie with her ethics troubles up there surely they could have spared one or two to investigate suspicions of campaign finance irregularities.The primary reason that didn't happen is it would have grounded any results in the reality-based universe, and the wingnuts are always going to prefer their alternative realities where they are always correct and blameless.

[Joan Taves]

Oh please. If necessary I would have given over $1000 to save the country as it swirls down the drain from 8 years of incompetence, and I make less than $100,000 a year working many overtime hours as a nurse. As it happens, I'm only a small donor who donated $25 to his campaign several times (whenever the hate/fear-mongering of the desperate repubs made me want to throw up).

[Nate]

"The key word there being 'total.'"

That's right--total. This campaign went on over 22 months, and you're trying to limit "small donors" to those who gave less than 200 over 22 months? Get Real.

People such as myself who could pitch in 50 bucks over 22 months, once a month, soon became "hot shot donors"--even though most of us are not making tons of cash and set aside a small amount each month for a donation.

Guess I'm a hot-shot big roller big-time donor, though.

[andie]

I donated more than $200 in $25 increments as I could afford it. I imagine many did so if you want to consider this disabled, living on SSDI gal a big donor, then go ahead. You and your article miss the point. How many donars compared to W? That is what I want to know.

[karela]

Well, this study would not consider me a small donor, but I do. I'm a nurse. I don't make tons of money and I couldn't give $1,000 all at once, but I strongly agreed with the things Obama said and I strongly disagreed with the things McCain/Palin said. I've never been political before, but when my government starting coming up with new words for torture so that it could use it "legally", I felt that my country was in great peril. Other things done by the Bush administration reinforced that view. So, I began to donate to Obama's campaign and I continued to give as often as I could. So yes, I gave more than a thousand dollars, but I don't see my contributions in the same way that I view a few wealthy people writing checks for $4,600. There were a great many people like me who gave to Obama's campaign. If you really want to write about the truth, why don't you find some of us and do interviews? Or better yet, write an article that explains the difference between a small donor like me who really sacrificed for something I believe in and a big donor who casually gives the maximum without a second thought. That's where the real Obama story lies. Write about that, because there are several million of us. We took our country back and we aren't going to let it be stolen again. Wait and see!

[TL]

So where does someone like me fit? I donated $354 in $50 increments and one obama store purchase. I'm over the small donor limit of $199, so that makes me what?

[Homer]

This is hilarious. Who cares if Bush also was elected with small donations? If Bush was able to be ushered into power by small donors, great. You are practicing guilt by association here. There were also many repeat donors that exceeded $200 given the enormous length of the campaign process this time and the contentious nature of it. Obama raised record amounts of money overall, so if individual repeat donors raised their amount in proportion to that one would expect them to exceed $200 at a higher rate than Bush's donors. I happen to personally know one of those "repeaters" who had a standing monthly donation set early on that eventually exceeded $200, much to their surprise. The fact is that one must standardize these measures with a much better model than simply comparing proportions by taking into consideration the length or primary and election cycle and the number of overall donors (this because one would much faster run out of new donors to find than one would be able to solicit repeat donations from a base). I suppose math and statistics are too hard for some however.

[IamJustinM]

By this definition even I would not be a small donor. Which I find extremely odd. All I did was donate ~$20 here or $30 there for about 10 months. My total was $220 over the course of the primary and general election. I considered myself a very small donor, but this report doesn't. I'm not sure what I think about that...

[CDW]

As just about anything involving statistics, this report is skewed to arrive at a certain outcome. I gave the Obama campaign more than $200, but I gave in dribs and drabs when I could afford it or when I couldn't afford it, but felt the campaign needed it over the 11 months I supported him. I gave up purchasing other things in order to donate. If that's not small donor, I don't know what is. I know for sure there were many more like me.

[Chuck T.]

I'm a regular person, who works a regular job every day. I gave to the Obama campaign whenever I could since January -- sometimes $50, sometimes $250, whenever I could afford it. The total amount of my gifts to the campaign amounted to about $2000 over the year.

I am NOT a "large donor." He raised this kind of money from a lot of people like me, people with hope who invested in the possibility of change. When I think "large donor," I don't think of people like me -- I think corporations and PACs.

I question the definition of "small donor" as someone giving only $199 through the entire campaign.

[legal alien]

This "study" and its naive reporting are fatally flawed: "large donor" and "large donation" are not synonymous. Eight co-workers all pitch in for one of them to donate the accumulated sum of $201. That's not an example of "big donor", yet that is what is reported. Likewise, one person contributes $199 on 50 different occasions and is nevertheless reported as a "small donor" for each of the 50 donations.

Rubbish study and gormless reporting: made for each other.

[Carol]

I don't believe a word about where he got his money because he is basically a liar.
First of all he promiced to use public funds and he did not so he is liar and I thank God didn't vote for him because he is someone I can't trust at all and that is a fact.
This by the name of Barry is not an American he is African born in Africa and then when his blook flather died his mother married a man from Indonesia they moved there because his step dad wanted him to go to school in Indonesia and the only way he could do that is to become a citizen in Indonesia and he did and that is a fact.
Then all of sudden he was born in Hawaii but the only thing is he said he was born in two (2) different hospitals I guess he couldn't make up his mind.
But I guess he had enough money to pay off all the people he had to quiet all of that informatio.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL NOW AND FOREVER AS I AM SURE HE WILL!!!!

[Rusty Austin]

This is true only if you accept the validity of the conclusions of the study, which I don't. Percentages mean nothing, what counts is overall numbers and overall dollar amounts, and by those numbers, Obama clearly has a grassroots army of small donors that dwarfs anything previously seen.

So carry on you Obama ankle biters, we are about to witness the second coming of FDR. It'll take some getting used to, since the president we have now is worthless and weak and stupid, and the one we have taking over is smart and strong and valuable. Get used to it.

[ronnor]

Its the foreign money that has been conveniently left out of the calculations. The people who donated 17,000 times, what about those and just who were they and now that the election is in the 'bag; when do we get to listen to the tape that was made with the cabal of terrorist in Los Angeles including Obama. The one that the LA Times "couldn't" because of ethics produce. Get an honorable job, pimp, used car salesman, the LA Times is propaganda machine for the DNC.

[jobowen]

Happily, I am one of those repeat donors. I am a working librarian and this is the first time ever that blind terror at the thought of a Republican victory led me to give one or two hundred dollars more than once. I actually lost count. This "expose" is more of a weasel whine than anything else.

[Broadway Carl]

The whole point of "small" donations and the organization it took the Obama campaign to fine tune the donation process was the fact that small donors can be repeat contributors over the course of the campaign without causing too much of a burden for those who chose to donate again. I was a five time donor but I most likely would have given less if required to make a one time large payment. It was a slow bleed instead of a major bloodletting, if you will. And that was fine with me - I was in a position to do so.

Now I consider myself a small donor, there is no doubt about that, but not according to the study you cite. I did not and probably won't ever max out at $4,600. Hell, I didn't even break $500 let alone the $1,000 that would be consider me a "large" donor. But I did break the $200 mark which puts me in another catagory which you don't characterize in your post, most likely because it'll blow your semantic theory out of the water.

Nice try though, Mr. Malcolm. It's time contribute positively to the discourse instead of these pathetic attempts to cast doubt on the President-Elect.

And to Alessandro - really?! $200 million in "undocumented" donations? That would be illegal, so how about a little proof from a non-partisan group instead of a link to an anti-Obama blog? You lost. Get over it and either help move this country forward or get out of the way and let others do the work for you.

[Charlotte]

Right. Because none of those "Large Donors" could POSSIBLY be small donors who donated $20-$40 each month over a period of a year and a half while his campaign was going.

The real question is how many of what you call "Large Donors" gave over $200 in lump sums. Or, how many gave over $200 in periodic installments of smaller amounts to fit their budget restrictions?