There's a fascinating article in The Atlantic by Joshua Green titled "The Amazing Money Machine." It looks at the development of Barack Obama's campaign structure, focusing mostly on the fund-raising operation, especially as contrasted with the old ways of doing things.
If you're an Obama-hater, you'll likely feel reinforced in your belief that we're all caught up in a cult. If you're not, you'll likely feel energized by the article -- I got a sense of joy from reading of the power of a real grass-roots movement and its ability to break free of the constraints of the existing hierarchy.
Yes We Can.
(h/t: Andrew Sullivan)
2 comments:
"What’s intriguing to Democrats and worrisome to Republicans is how someone lacking these deep connections to traditional sources of wealth could raise so much money so quickly. How did he do it?"
I don't discount the fact that Obama has a lot of cultish grass-roots support; there are (per Bill Maher's show) lots of Obama supporters who don't seem to know a thing about his policy positions beyond the fact that he stands for change who are willing to stand in line for hours to catch a glimpse of their savior and who presumably are the ones who are going online and donating $25.
But I really wonder how much of this is just spin to gloss over the fact that Obama has forged connections (I can't say how "deep" they are) with deep-pocketed liberals who are able to muster large 400 plate fund-raising events with maximum-allowable-donation entry tickets.
For example, the "bitter" comment which generated so much ire was made at just such a private, exclusive, expensive campaign event given to at the home of a a San Francisco billionaire in front of a large audience of $2300-donating rich people.
Yes, lots of the money is coming in off the internet, but somehow I'd imagine that lots of it comes from large donations from rich, smart people who know how to use the internet.
A lot more interesting than just the figure of how much money he's raised on the internet would be a breakdown of what percentage of that $55 million (and now, the fifth of a billion total) came from pledges at or near the maximum allowable pledge, and how much was Joe Blow in Ohio donating fifty hard earned dollars he can barely afford to part with.
So when Barack Obama is elected, he'll owe his successful campaign to thousands of rich people connected by a few smart entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley rather than a few rich pay-masters in a smoke-filled room. Huzzah for McCain-Feingold.
But I really wonder how much of this is just spin to gloss over the fact that Obama has forged connections (I can't say how "deep" they are) with deep-pocketed liberals ...
I don't think the article or the Obama campaign claim that Obama doesn't get any support from limousine liberals. The point is, he also has an unprecedented amount of support from people who give small amounts.
A lot more interesting than just the figure of how much money he's raised on the internet would be a breakdown of what percentage of that $55 million (and now, the fifth of a billion total) came from pledges at or near the maximum allowable pledge, and how much was Joe Blow in Ohio donating fifty hard earned dollars he can barely afford to part with.
It's hard to say exactly what the breakdown is, but here are a few partial indicators:
o The HuffPo reported about a week ago that the Obama campaign has now gotten donations from 1.5 million unique donors.
o USA Today reported a couple of weeks ago that more than half the money raised by the Obama and Clinton campaigns, from January through March, came from people giving $200 or less.
o NPR passed along the breakdowns for Obama's March 2008 fundraising here: about $40 million from 442,000 contributors; i.e., an average of less than $100 each. (Yeah, I wish they'd given the median, too.)
o The Guardian reported in late April that 20% of Obama's total receipts came from people giving $2300 or more, and 45% came from people giving $200 or less.
As to your skepticism about the true nature of the Internet donors, I would say that it wouldn't surprise me to find out that there are a few people who have spread their e-donations around in some clever way. But unless you have evidence to the contrary, it seems more reasonable to believe that the overwhelming majority of such donations are, in fact, on the up and up.
For one thing, it seems ridiculously complicated; e.g., how many people do you really think are going to give $2300 in amounts less than $200 in such a way as to disguise their identity? You'd need a dozen different IP addresses and a dozen different ways to pay, and each of these would have to be associated with a different name.
For another, I have to believe that the Obama campaign is very careful about this, since any hint that this was an Astroturf thing would result in a scandal that'd make the media and the public say, "Jeremiah who?"
So when Barack Obama is elected, he'll owe his successful campaign to thousands of rich people connected by a few smart entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley rather than a few rich pay-masters in a smoke-filled room. Huzzah for McCain-Feingold.
Sure, it's not perfect. As long as our campaigns are going to be ridiculously long, ridiculously expensive, and few seem to want a public-financing-only system, it never will be. But it's a big step in the right direction, as was McCain-Feingold. Better a million people, directed by a thousand, and coordinated by a few, rather than just the few fat cats writing checks for everything.
Post a Comment