Small donor myth debunked

Politico ^ | 7-16-2015 | Kenneth P. Vogel and Tarini Parti

[Sir Napsalot]

The heavily touted grassroots fundraising engines were largely spin, a POLITICO analysis shows.

Don’t believe the small donor hype.

Suggestions by Hillary Clinton and other presidential candidates that their campaigns are being powered by massive grassroots fundraising engines were largely spin for most of the 2016 prospects, a POLITICO analysis of reports filed this week shows.

Of the $127 million raised for the primary election by the 15 candidates who disclosed their finances to the Federal Election Commission, less than 30 percent came from donors contributing $200 or less, according to analyses of the reports by POLITICO and the Campaign Finance Institute.

By contrast, the analyses found, 42 percent of the candidates’ primary-election cash came from donors giving the maximum primary donation of $2,700.

Yet, the candidates are seeking to downplay their reliance on major donors to their campaigns and supportive super PACs – often relying on misleading math tricks to make the case that their efforts are funded by regular folks. There are a few reasons: they don’t want to appear beholden to the very rich increasingly subsidizing presidential politics, and their operatives believe that small donors will continue donating throughout the campaign, and can eventually be mobilized as part of the campaign’s activist army to help get out the vote.

......

By far the leader in small-dollar fundraising was Bernie Sanders. His insurgent campaign for the Democratic nomination raised more than 75 percent of its $13.6-million haul from donors who gave $200 or less, versus only 2 percent from maximum donors.

[Sir Napsalot]

"Sanders’ small-dollar fundraising provides a source of continuing revenue unavailable to candidates who rely more heavily on donors who hit the contribution limit early and are barred from giving more. But the Vermont Senator – whose campaign centers partly on reducing the influence of big-money in politics – has put himself at a financial disadvantage by rejecting big-donor-funded super PACs of the sort formed by allies of Clinton, Bush and most of the other candidates in the field."......"The incentive for small donor databases always went beyond the money to mobilization." .....

I am sure Obama's vast database can be bought by the Clintons. (Unless Clinton camp really piss off the Obama camp, then they may help Sanders instead.)

Also this in case you want to donate to a candidate, “Maxed out donors are becoming like Triple-A baseball,” said Wertheimer. “They are not unimportant but they are dwarfed by super PAC donors.”

[Mamzelle]

How about Jeb and Goldman-Sachs? He’s Wall Street the whole way! He as good as told us that he intends to buy the nomination. I wonder just how much trump has spent? I’m guessing that he’s the most frugal of all the GOP.

[Sir Napsalot]

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

(Source: REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004)

[Sir Napsalot]

One article I found says Only 3 Percent of Jeb Bush's Campaign Cash Came From Small Donors

Of course, it could change later. But Jeb! is well and truly bought by Big Money machines. (Don't know the true number with Goldman-Sachs.)

[Mamzelle]

Big story on Drudge today about GS CEO becoming a billionaire. Also, Jeb was armpit-deep in Lehman bros in 2008.