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

[jim in LA]

I love this comment:

Keep digging, Andrew, America isn't done burying the Republican party.

This will be a fun-filled four years, with the nuts (who now wear the mantle of the Establishment, by the way - and let us never forget to Question Authority) working overtime to deny facts that don't fit their world view.

[Robbie]

GEE !
I am sorry that the POLLSTERS are confused !
Obama Campaign raised all the money that he needed.
Why are you concerned about it ? He has paid his bills.

[redherkey]

This shouldn't take away from other remarkable Obama fundraising records, like the record millions raised overseas by foreign citizens, or the record millions processed by credit card/debit/gift card donations that lacked any minimum controls required by VISA/Mastercard. Indeed, those in the industry are commenting that this may be the single largest instance of unvalidated card transactions that blatantly disregarded processing requirements of any online "merchant."

[Ben Samuels]

HA HA... Yeah keep digging.

Probably the real truth is that Obama's campaign was so successful that by the end it turned a lot of small donors (this one, his parents, and a lot of his firends included) into MIDDLE-CLASS donors.

[Jackie]

This article about small donors is garbage. I am one of those small donors and I resent your implication that what we accomplished is a scam. Being a small donor does not mean a one-time donor. I would have loved to donate the maximum of $4,600 or even $2,300 to Obama's campaign, but I don't have that kind of discretionary income. I donated as much as I could when I could in amounts of $25, $30, or $50 throughout Barack Obama's campaign, as did millions of other people just like me. For you to diminish our hard work and commitment to his campaign is disgusting. Yes, all of us honest, hard working Americans helped Barack Obama become our 44th President and we are proud of it so live with it.

[Sally Chinen]

I guess I'd be considered a part of the "big" donor base since I gave $5 and multiples of $25 several times during the campaign of Obama/Biden and my totals exceeded $199. It was still us little guys, and a lot of us that were willing to give and do for our belief in our candidates, who, by the way, used the money well.

Of more interest to me would be an article researching the top donors of each candidate - give their names and figures of donations. Publish the number of actual donors regardless of dollar figures for candidates. I'd betcha the numbers would coincide with the same ratio of people turning out for the candidates' rallies.

It's time for our media to get back to reporting complete, fair and balanced news, the time for the biased or one-sided, divisive and anger stoking headlines to go away. The freedom of speech of one-sided opinions have blog sites for ranting, raving, and slants, without inciting hatred or violence.

Mainstream media, unless it is purely for entertainment (i.e. Saturday Night Live and Bill O'Reilly) needs to return to respectable, factual, unbiased news reporting, or we may as well all start reading the National Enquirer instead.

[Katie of St. Pauil]

This actually makes sense. This is, I beileve, what happened: If many donors are like me, they started giving money early in the campaign. Donations ranged from $10-$50. I started giving $10 per month. Around the time of the Iowa Caucus, I increased my donations to $25-$50 per month. One month I gave more like $100. In the end, I probably donated close to $1,000 to this campaign. Never in my life have I given so much money to a political candidate. Because it occurred cumulatively, over a period of several months or even a couple of years, it never felt like I was giving a lot. I would definitely consider myself a small donor, even though I gave almost $1,000.

[PAul Kenny]

A former Cheney speech writer and Brooking's Institute Fellow is "surprised" that Obama only got small donations from 26% of base? I gave about $250 over a 5 month period. Does that make me a Large Donor? This was the longest presidential campaign on record. Bush's was 1/4th the period. Get real, small donors can participate because we can pay over time.

[cp]

This article is based on statistical manipulation to support the writer's premise rather than produce an honest analysis of the Obama donor profile. Produce the numbers in their entirety and let the readers be the judge. The Obama campaign had 3,000,000 donors.

[Mariln]

I had never contributed to a political campaign before Obama's and am a large donor by your standards which I think are misleading. Every now and again I would give $100 or so until it added up to a nice sum. The reason for the dribble rather than the gush of funds from me was strictly financial . I've got to tell you, I feel like a small donor who was inspired by the Obama campaign in a way that I've never been before and I know lots of working class "large" donors like me.

[uri wurst dey]

When are you Republi-cons gonna accept the fact that you lost, your party is in shambles, and everybody hates your ass for what you did to this nation. Got it, or should I repeat it again? I really don't give a rat's ass where Obama's money came from or where he was born. I only care that he's smart, he won the election and he's not one of you.

[Kathryn Munson]

I am definitely a small donor and I definitely gave more than $200, (but a hair less I think than $1000). Statistics can tell any story you mold them to tell. I make less than $40,000 a year, but I gave on average $25 a week to Obama from that. The primary season was so long it ended up being a lot of money, but that does by no means make me a big donor, in the grand tradition of big donors. I have seen anecdotal evidence from others of what they too gave and it fits pretty well with my pattern. So a lot of those over $200 givers are still small and even sometimes, very small, donors.

[TexasBaldEagle]

This news doesn't change my support of Obama in any way, but it will keep me watching to see if he can actually do what he said he would without cartering to special interests. As with any president the pressure on him will be enormous and time will tell if he will stick to hiis promises and ideals.
His hero, Mr. Lincoln is revered both as a great leader and savior of the Union with honor, but also as a shrewd politician. Lincoln at times had to postpone or delay things he wanted to do (the Emancipation Proclamation comes to mind) in order to acheive immediate necessary objectives as a wartime president. Mr. Obama faces almost insurmountable problems and his challenges are frequently compared to those confronting FDR. Both men followed stubborn and ineffectual chief executives.

[Juanita]

I have never given to a campaign in my life prior to this election cycle. Yes - I gave more than $200 but I am sure many others who wouldn't have otherwise contributed did the same. From the standpoint that Obama was able to raise money from people that never gave before, regardless of the amount, is amazing and newsworthy and doesn't diminsh the argument that he raised money from small donors. Like another poster said, I think it's important to look at the total number of donors. I started out giving $200 but was so energized by the campaign, that I kept giving. Thats the real story.

[Phyllis]

In the past I was always a small (way less than <$1000) donor, but every time Sarah Palin spoke I found myself reaching for the "donate" button. Like me, I think a lot of people found themselves reaching down deep in their pockets and giving more than they ever have before. And when you're up to $920 in small contributions, well, you might as well go for $1000.

[ET]

You don't give the raw number of donors, which negates the "unimpressiveness" argument you are trying to make.

If 20 people were small donors for Bush, but turns out 400 people were small donors for Obama, then isn't it really impressive that Obama was able to get a raw 380 more small donors to give at all?

And if the raw number of donors for Bush wasn't very big because he was the incumbent and Kerry wasn't super thrilling, it again doesn't help your case when you don't share the raw numbers.

And the final piece is Kerry in 2004. What were his small vs big donor %'s?

So much missing...

[sabio]

What is the denominator in that percentage? Obama had many more total donations under $200 than Bush so comparing percentages is hiding the full story.

There must be questions on this methodology. I for one only donated $25 here and starting in January and adding up to about $300. But I don't count as a small donor? $200 may be an inappropriate cut-off considering the length of this election, new voting/giving dynamics, and total overall donor growth for Obama. Simply comparing percentages ignores all of this.

[Tim]

$120 million or thereabouts is rather huge, though, isn't it? I made a lot of repeat donations that added up to about $1000. It was more than I've ever given. If you divide $120 million by about $25 or $50 then you get a lot of donors, no?

[Dennis D]

I am sure the LA TIMES and other left wing papers have a YEARS worth of articles to print that were withheld for after the election. Yes its obvious.

[Hate You]

Obama won. Get over it.

[The Gunny]

Wow! I guess that makes me a large donor since I managed to donate a thousand dollars, half of which I put on my credit, mostly in intervals of 20 to 50 dollars. Stick it up your a&& sh*t stain. You and your kind are worthless sh*ts that have nearly destroyed this nation. The public is on to how insignificant and corrupt you clowns parading as journalists really are. Rest assured that this is the last peace I read with your sh*tty name attached to it.

[Mister Snitch]

"Why do you not list the total number of donors and compare that to the numbers for George W Bush? I suspect that you have these numbers and don't want to release them because they don't help the ridiculous and pathetic case you are trying to make."

Thanks for publishing the facts that some folks, clearly, don't want to hear - and have decided NEVER to hear.

I myself knew this some time ago, as it's pretty obvious to someone who has in fact dealt with the politics of small-donation, grassroots politics. Fact is, it doesn't work, because while people profess that they don't want 'big money' dominating politics, they are NOT willing to pay for campaigns out of their own pockets. Instead, they favor attempts to put limits on contributions (see McCain/Feingold) which not only do NOT work, but actually drive campaign spending UP.

The solution? People continue to favor spending limits, and money continues to find a way around them. Don't look for any 'learning from history' here.

[Pro America Parts?]

How come I am not counted as a small donor? I kept donating $50 until I ended with a total of $450. According to your analysis (distortions) I and millions of others like me are not small donors? You are a smearing scumbag!

[Reasoner101]

Nirad is correct; just checked the absolute numbers of donors in the study linked to in this distorted article, which are the ones which are the most journalistically objective. Obama had twice as many contirbutors as either Bush, or Kerry four years earlier, and nearly twice as many as Bush Senior. I imagine the reporter knew that but this inconveneinet fact conflicted with his nifty mainstream media "NO WE ARE NOT LIBERALS RUSH" headline.

Have they got any editors left there at the LA Times? And people wonder why the Internet is pushing out the newspapers...

[Pro America Parts?]

How come I am not counted as a small donor? I kept donating $50 until I ended with a total of $450. According to your analysis (distortions) I and millions of others like me are not small donors? You are a smearing scumbag!