Obama’s fund raising
This Telegraph article was headlined about the Obama’s marriage issues in 2000, but what was of most interest is this:
Despite the candidate’s promise of transparency there was plenty of sleight of hand from the Obama camp during the campaign. The greatest fiction was the myth that the campaign’s vast war chest was raised online in $5 and $10 donations from hundreds of thousands of people.
“It wasn’t the Internet,” admitted Penny Pritzker, who headed Mr Obama’s national finance committee. It was in fact, classic old fashioned high dollar contributions from wealthy Americans.
Not a revelation I have seen reported widely.
1 Total TweetBacks: (Tweet this post)
Tags: Barack Obama
June 8th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
“Not a revelation I have seen reported widely.”
Perhaps not in the NZ media, but in the UK, the Times, Telegraph and Guardian ran stories about this during the campaign itself.
The American media probably ate the hype and ran with it, though.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
You must have seen Zombie’s photos of Obama visiting the billionaires… and being ushered in the servant’s entrance…
http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/
June 8th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
David, how DARE you criticize “the One” ! This man will single handedly save the WORLD. A you, you get nit-picky about a few little untruths that the media actually knew about but refused to run because they, too, were part of the campaign. It’s not like the campaign was actually dishonest, not like it was illegally tied up with Acorn or anything like that, that a newspaper as august as the NYT would suppress the story, or….Oh, wait…
June 8th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
“Not a revelation I have seen reported widely.”
When have the mainstream media ever reported the truth on this poseur and fake.
If they had, Obama would never have been voted POTUS.
The US has elected a charlatan and a fraud, and underpinning this disaster, was the influence of schemers, liars, propagandists and partisan leftists (everywhere in the world) posing as “journalists”.
Despicable cowards, and traitors to the ideal of democracy.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
They didn’t report on the lack of proper controls on the website funding, controls that McCain had in place.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
I understand Obama is funding his re-election campaign by selling notarised, autographed copies of his birth certificate.
Redbaiter has ordered 500 in the hope one will show Obama not US born.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Didn’t NZ use to have a politian who claimed to be funded from lots of small donations but really was in the pocket of the wealthy?
June 8th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
i suppose he can’t do any worse than the bush crew.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Which would of course equally apply had McCain been elected. Exactly. Apart from substituting “…partisan leftists…” for “…partisan conservatives…”
Shame some people still can’t see through both sides.
Four legs good, two legs bad. Why do people have trouble understanding that simple insight?
June 8th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
“Apart from substituting “…partisan leftists…” for “…partisan conservatives…””
Only the head up their arse left would describe the double dealing McCain as any kind of “Conservative”.
You’re a hopeless case Reid.
The turncoat McCain was the liberal media’s favourite RINO until he stood against Obama.
Check here for the latest on how the true right regard MCain.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2266925/posts
June 8th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
David, isn’t it a bit late to be bleating now?
Those who pointed to the fraudulent and shallow CV of this flakiest ever of US presidents were either ignored or pilloried.
He has destroyed the US industrial base and shattered the delicate equilibrium in world affairs which until now held in check the insane extremists of Islam.
We are in for a rough ride, thanks largely to the deluded denizens of the western left and their complicit friends in the media.
It’s 1939 deja vue all over again.
June 8th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
So RB, if you can see through both McCain and Obama, which is good, could you also see through Clinton and Bush 43?
June 8th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
What big money donors ? Some one is having you on. There is a individual limit of about $2300 per person for the Presidential campaign.
What is confused is the agrregates of people who WORK for large employers like here the list of the largest donors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
University of California $1,385,675
Goldman Sachs $980,945
Microsoft Corp $806,299
Harvard University $793,460
Google Inc $790,564
Citigroup Inc $657,268
JPMorgan Chase & Co $650,758
Stanford University $580,904
Sidley Austin LLP $574,938
Time Warner $547,951
National Amusements Inc $541,251
WilmerHale $524,292
UBS AG $522,019
IBM Corp $518,557
Skadden, Arps et al $510,274
Columbia University $503,566
Morgan Stanley $490,873
US Government $479,956
General Electric $479,454
Latham & Watkins $467,311
Note this comment
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who’s willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big “bundle.”
Bundlers
Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who’s willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big “bundle.”
Even though these donors direct more money to the candidates than anyone else, disclosure can be spotty, with Obama and McCain posting bundlers by ranges, indicated in this chart with the “max” and “min” columns, and with the top ranges being simply “$500,000 or more.” Together, 540 elites have directed at least $207,200,000 to McCain, and 561 have gathered at least $63,200,000 for Obama.
So to repeat with each person limit of $2300 , it hardly constitutes BIG MONEY
June 8th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
reddy
“Check here for the latest on how the true right regard MCain.”
Why should anyone care what six people think?
Countess,
It’s actually $2400, per election … hence Obama could get $2400 for his primary campaign, then $2400 for his general election campaign. The broader point, I guess, is that Obama often is portrayed as heralding a new era of political funding, where tens-of-thousands of ordinary folks each chip in a few bucks towards his election costs. However, in reality he remained heavily reliant on the established methods of fundraising in the US … the “bundlers” you mention, who can stitch together multiple $2400 cheques, as well as PACs (which can give $5000 to a candidate). What matters in the USA is being able to draw on networks of comparatively wealthy folks ($2400 ain’t pocket change for most folks) … not having one or two big donors in your pocket.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Well at least Obama wasnt in thrall to the bundlers or those who contribute the max. You could say he had a foot in the camp of small donors and a toe the those in the $1000 plus category
As you can see 540 elites raised $207mill for McCain while 561 elites got $63mill for Obama.
The answer is McCain(total raised$368 mill) was beholden to 500 individuals while the similar numbers for Obama were much smaller proportion of his higher total fundraised. ($740 million)
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php?cycle=2008
Very very different to DPFs slant on the Telegraph story.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
“Why should anyone care what six people think?”
Check the thread now moron. Not that that is the issue. I’m trying to alert the mungbean read to the widespread destruction of mainstream news and comment, at the hands of partisan leftists posing as objective commentators, and the idea they purveyed that McCain has anything in common with the “political” right.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Whereas, I’m merely pointing out to RB that he’s wrong, very wrong indeed, in every way.
And I can cite lots of google links as well.
So there.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Welcome to the Dark Side David.
Pointing out the failings of the Messiah have been a regular feature of my postings at No Minister and the Fairfacts Media Show.
The latest is that his debt-busting spendathons will push up global interest rates, which means higher mortgage rates for Kiwis, despite what Bill English achieved in his recent budget.
Earlier today, I also posted how The One got so much wrong in his recent speech to the ‘Moslem World.’
The Messiah is a complete imbecile as righties like me have long argued.
We can only hope more centrist figures other than you quickly realise what an Obamination we have in the White House.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
This is totally unsurprising.
What the Countess of Cleavage also misunderstands is that the bundlers can also direct money to State Party’s Senatorial/Congressional campaigns. The better cap to view is the overall personal cap for all giving which is about 130K (from memory).
What low personal caps and disclosure measures prove is that forcing a candidate and or party to raise money in small increments is really a question about who can carry the cost of the inefficiency of this. By and large despite all the advances in technology it is mostly the wealthy who can afford the transaction costs. In the US regulation designed to prevent the influence of money actually advances the domainance of politics by the wealthy.
June 9th, 2009 at 5:23 am
Bush had his faults,but Obama is finding out its easier to talk shit than lead.
To show any cocession to hardline islam is in their eyes a failing,one which they will take heart from.
To early to say 1939 all over again, but the seeds are sown, history shall show where we go from here.
June 9th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Remember that in violation of donation rules the Obama camp turned off address verification on their online donation web page. That meant that foriegners could donate, and did, hundreds of millions to the Obama fund in direct vioaltion of US law. That the MSm have not covered this story is no surprise. Some of their TV news anchors are already calling Obama a Deity.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:59 am
What has money donated to a senate campaign have to do with Obama ? The same situation would apply to McCain , and since there was twice as many GOP senators up for election they would have raised much more money , but that wasnt directly related to McCain either( other than he would turn up at fundraisers)
I have shown that the ‘big’ money donors raised by Obama was tiny in comparison to the total money he raised (10%) while for McCain it was more like 60%. And so as not to use % to mislead, Obama’s actual big money total was 25% of McCain’s.
The conclusions are that Obama raised far larger amounts from much more people, those that merely wanted him to win, not wring concessions from him to favour their industry or cause.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Some of those big money fundraisers are not happy with their Messiah!
http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/11/offshore-banking-business-obamas-rich-donors-threaten-him-over-closing-foreign-tax-havens/
June 9th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Nonsense Fairfiction. The big money fundraisers only supplied 10% of his $740 mill. They didnt put him in the WH.
Where are YOUR facts
June 9th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Big money donors eh?
Tempting as it is to observe the enormous “pot calls kettle black” type hypocrisy in either side criticising the other for accepting donations from the rich, I will settle for noting that when the actual VOTES were counted:
(1) Obama won
(2) McCain and Sarah ‘I-can-see-Russia-from-my-house’ lost
(3) Eat that
June 9th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
“traitors to the ideal of democracy.”
Fit only for the hangman when your glorious revolution arrives eh Ratbiter?
June 9th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Countess,
I actually like Obama, and am glad he won. Ratty is right on the money with his analysis. But that shouldn’t blind us to the fact he had to run in the US environment, with all the money politics that entails. So opensecrets.org actually notes “Obama’s victory in the general election was aided by his tremendous fundraising success. Since the start of 2007, his campaign relied on bigger donors and smaller donors nearly equally, pulling in successive donations mostly over the Internet.” http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
This is a bit more than the “10%” you claim “big money fundraisers” contributed to him. Further, the point that Chris Diack raises is that the DNSC, RNSC, DNCC and RNCC also are able to pump in money that helps their presidential candidates tangentially (by promoting general party “get out the vote” messages … remember in the USA there is no public spending encouraging people to vote!) So focusing just on Obama’s (admittedly very successful) small-scale, internet driven donor pool is a bit misleading … that’s all that’s being said.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
In any case, does anyone else think Obama’s huge success in getting donations from ‘joe average’ small donors could form part of the argument against compulsory taxpayer funded campaigning (putting aside the morality of taxpayer funded anything etc..)?
June 9th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Stephen, the US taxpayer funding is voluntary by the taxpayer. They mark a box on their return to provide $2 I think. That goes into the fund which supports the primaries and election
June 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Stephen,
Depends on whether Obama is an outlier or the harbringer of a new politics. I rather suspect much of his fundraising success was due to the particular circumstances of the 2008 election, and in particular the large amount of anti-Bush sentiment/desire for something new and exciting. Whether this can be sustained through to 2012 is debatable … as is the question whether it is translatable to other jurisdictions that don’t have the same drivers at work (i.e. is there anything in NZ’s contemporary politics likely to excite people who normally don’t give to political parties to start doing so?).
I guess you can argue it is up to the parties to generate that excitement … but is it something that can be manufactured/pulled out of thin air? In the US it took several years of Iraq, an economic melt-down, and Bush’s approval rates in the 20′s to feed Obamania. Frankly, if this is the price you need to pay to get lots of small donations going, I hope NZ never gets there!
June 9th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Much as I appreciate a source like “opensecrets”, there seem to be some problems with how the numbers add up. I even some footnotes to that effect (”help…..”).
But even using the figures at hand there seems to be a gap or two.
For a start the total that Cleavage is quoting for McCain – $368,093,763 – includes $84 million of Federal Funds that Barack Obama decided he could afford to skip when he saw his cash rolling in.
That’s a very deceptive argument.
On the latter point, I’m actually rather pleased that Obama did so because it means that Republicans will be able to dismiss forevermore, any future whining from Democrats about ‘buying’ elections and suggestions that public financing is the way to go in ‘leveling’ the playing field.
That aside, if we are going to compare apples to apples we should ignore the Federal Funds. That leaves us with:
McCain – $ 283,989,963
Obama – $ 656,357,572
Of which McCain had about $83 million designated as “Other” and similarly Obama had $88 million: a wash. Similarly with insignificant PAC contributions that each man received.
So that leaves us with private donors contributing:
McCain – $ 199,275,171
Obama – $ 656,357,572
Which is what we see on the opening page for each candidate.
Where this gets interesting is when we turn, not to the “bundlers” section but the donor demographics:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordemCID_compare.php?cycle=2008
Looking at those, which also show the splits between the small donations – so many people donated between $200-$499 range, so many between $500-$999, and so forth – we get the following totals:
McCain – $ 197,089,266
Obama – $ 392,666,789
I’d note there appear to be problems on this page too, since the two little summary boxes at the top have totals for male/female that don’t add up to the totals of the more detailed charts below them, and similarly with the money totals for the respective genders.
Nevetheless, the interesting point is the respective gaps between the “Individual contributions” on the front page for each candidate, and these figures drawn up from the detailed breakdown of contributions by size. The gap for McCain is:
McCain – $ 2,185,905
The gap between McCain’s detailed breakdown by individual donor size and his total “Individual Contributions” is very small and can probably be accounted for by the contributions of the bundlers (and their families) themselves – some $45 million – which likely also eats up some of the $83 million listed as “Other”. Since the bundlers account for some $207 million handled as a minimum, then clearly the bulk of those individual contributions were funneled through their hands. That’s grounds for McCain being grateful to 540 ‘elites’ for their organization – less so for their direct contributions.
Meanwhile for Obama we have the following gap:
Obama – $ 263,690,783
Hmmm! Where could all those “Individual Contributions” have come from?
I think the answer lies in the vast empty column noted as “Maximum” in the “bundlers” page, for those 47 elites of Obama who bundled together at least $500,000. We don’t know how much they actually eventually bundled, and neither do we know this for McCain’s 385 equivalent elites. But since we have only to account for a gap of $2 million in McCain’s individual contributions it’s safe to say that their maximums were close to the minimums.
In the case of Obama the ‘Maximums’ must have been vast indeed for those 47 elites, since even a conservative summing of the remaining bundlers, maxed out at $200,000 or $100,000 – adds up to only approx. $40 million out of your $63 million calculation.
That is not really a surprise since the figures Cleavage summed were simply on the “Min” column. Again, that’s rather deceptive arguing, even for statistics, but in this case quite illuminating.