Catherine Holahan, writing at BusinessWeek, published a story last week on how the various presidential candidates are having tremendous success at attracting contributions from small donors, those who make gifts of less than $200. The campaigns are tapping blogs, e-mails, social networks, YouTube videos, and their own Web sites to reach into the hearts and pockets of new contributors. This year’s campaigns are receiving more small donations than the campaigns in previous elections, according to the Campaign Finance Institute.

However, this year’s candidates are also receiving more large money donations than ever before. And apparently the ratio of large donors to those who give $200 or less has remained relatively the same as in prior elections. So you have to wonder about the ‘new’ conventional wisdom that large donors means less to the candidates this year as a result of the influe of small money, and that some how the campaign finance system that allows the big donors to get their hooks into the candidates is less awful than its ever been because of the influx of small money.

You see, bundlers, those well connected individuals that mobilize their wealthy friends and acquaintances to make contributions, have had a big hand in funding the campaigns. Nancy Watzman, my longtime friend and colleague at Public Campaign, has explained how large donors continued to dominate presidential fundraisings in the third quarter of last year, the latest figures available. (Note: the campaigns are required to report on their fourth quarter fundraising on January 31. And there is no indication that their will be a significant change in giving patterns.)

Late last year, the Center for Responsive Politics completed an analysis of giving that found that the big givers — wealthy individuals, top industries and interest groups, have increased their giving over 2004 by 46 percent.

So, despite the fact that small donors, many of whom are contirbuting over the Internet, are making it easier for candidates to raise more small money, the golden rule in funding candidates — thems that have got the gold, rule — still pertains.

0 Comments

My long time colleague and friend Nancy Watzman at Public Campaign writes over at the Huffington Post that despite all the talk about netroots and a democratization of fund raising via the Internet that when it comes to campaign finance for the presidential candidates big donors still significantly dominate. In the last presidential election, it was the early money — raised from people giving a $1,000 or more that established the front runners.

Nancy quotes a Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) study that found in the first six months of 2007, the candidates received nearly three-quarters of their funds in amounts of $1,000 or more. For Giuliani, Romney and Clinton, the figure exceeds 80 percent. When it comes to small contributions ($200 or less), Obama is raised $16.4 million, more than the rest of the Democratic field combined, as well as the entire Republican field combined. As impressive as that is, he still raised three-fifths of his funds in amounts of $1,000 or more. Overall, in the second quarter of fund raising, there was an increase of 84 percent in small contributions over first quarter totals, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).But still the small money is dwarfed by the big donors.

The campaigns are to file third quarter reports on Monday. And one thing is for sure, the reports will show they have received the lion’s share of their funds from large donors. For House and Senate campaigns this is even more of the case.

0 Comments

Over the years of my own mucking around in the issue of political influence I’ve tried a lot of ways of connecting the issue to various constituencies that I thought should have a natural interest in the undue influence of political contributors on their lawmakers. And that strategy has gained lots of adherents to the notion that big money (campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures, etc.) skews national priorities and policies. Environmentalists certainly believe it. So too advocates for less oil dependent energy policies and a host of other issues where big money is lined up against the community interest.  

So I was pleased with the launch of Muckraking Mom, a new blog written by a former colleague and long-time ally - Nancy Watzman - one of the best analysts of the impact of money and politics on policy. I found it funny (lots of insights on the antics of her young son Leo), informative, and disturbing. Check it out and pass it along to your friends.

What’s exciting about this is that Nancy has seized the new media as a way of getting out the message about big money politics’ disturbing influence over policies that regular, every day folks - Moms and Dads - care about. But no more 50 page reports, or books (one of which she co-authored with Sunlight consultant Micah Sifry), or reliance on TV or radio interviews. She’s bringing it straight to us.

0 Comments