Big donors are the key to Obama's record haul

An early Obamabot thread piously proclaimed that the Obamamessiah was funding his run with the help of “the little people.”
Of course no one with a lick of sense in their head was buying such BS…never the less it was a big ticket ride for a lot of people.

Well, as Gomer Pyle would say, “SURPRISE SURPRISE!”

[quote][url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/05/america/bundlers.php]Big donors are the key to Obama’s record haul[/url]
By Michael M. Luo and Christopher Drew, Published: August 5, 2008

In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far.

But records show that a third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more - a total of $112 million, more than the total of contributions in that category taken in by either Senator John McCain, his Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries.

Behind those large donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama “bundlers,” fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers.

While his campaign has cited its volume of small donations as a rationale for his decision to opt out of public financing for the general election, [b]Obama has worked to build a network of big-dollar supporters from the time he began contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate.

He tapped into well-connected people in Chicago before the 2004 Senate race, and, once elected, set out across the country starting in 2005 to cultivate some of his party’s most influential money collectors.[/b]

He courted them with the savvy of a veteran politician, through phone calls, meals and one-on-one meetings; he wrote thank-you cards and remembered birthdays; he sent them autographed copies of his book and doted on their children.

The fruit of his efforts has put Obama’s major donors on a pace that almost rivals the $147 million that President George W. Bush’s Pioneer and Ranger network raised in $1,000-and-larger contributions in 2004 during the primary season.

An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group at about 130, with many working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses - nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real-estate industry.

The biggest fund-raisers include people like Julius Genachowski, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission and a technology executive who is new to big-time political fund-raising; Robert Wolf, president and chief operating officer of UBS Investment Bank; James Torrey, a New York hedge fund investor; and Charles Rivkin, an animation studio head in Los Angeles.

“It’s fairly clear that this is being packaged as an extraordinary new kind of fund-raising, and the Internet is a new and powerful part of it,” said Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute. “But it’s also clear that many of the old donors are still there and important.”

The care and feeding of top Obama fund-raisers underscores their significance to his campaign. Members of his National Finance Committee who fulfill their commitment to raise at least $250,000 are being rewarded with trips to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.…excerpt[/quote]

“We are the change we’ve been waiting for!”

And that ain’t small change.

It seems to me that EVERYONE wants him to win. Hence the record number of small AND big donations.

Except for all those people who gave brazillions to Hillary.

“Everyone.”

Please.

Right now they’re aboot even in the polls.

A particular demo drop for Barry and rise for McCain is in the 19 - 29 age bracket.

It would appear that political sobriety is entering the mix.

My god, this man is clever, shrewd, capable of bringing long term plans to fruition, and seems to have the support of both the connected people and the little people. Get him away from the White House.

Plus, am I misreading this?

[quote]In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far.

But records show that a third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more - a total of $112 million, more than the total of contributions in that category taken in by either Senator John McCain, his Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries.[/quote]

If $200 and under contributions account for half, well that is still pretty fucking significant. And if contributions from more connected sources are 1/3, well, you know, that means Obama owes less to them than to the little people.

It doesn’t matter that the number figure from well-connected donors is in total higher than his opponent’s. What matters is the percentage of that figure to the total.

So, the title of the article is, as I would expect, completely disingenuous. Big donors are not the key, they are a part, one third a part of the record haul.

In any case, it is amusing beyond measure to read two-time Bush-Cheney supporters suddenly offended by a politican’s ties to business.

As for this:

Sounds like a leader. Now why again are some so afraid of this? Ah yes, because he isn’t YOUR smart, savvy, shrewd, talented leader. :laughing:

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]An early Obamabot thread piously proclaimed that the Obamamessiah was funding his run with the help of “the little people.”
Of course no one with a lick of sense in their head was buying such BS…never the less it was a big ticket ride for a lot of people.[/quote]
So you are saying the content of the article is not true then? We are eager to hear your well-thought through arguments and see what proof you have to offer.

MM -
And you always walk on the sunny side of the trail I’m betting… :dance:

That doesn’t prove much, other than that he is more popular than either of them.

:sunglasses:

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]MM -
And you always walk on the sunny side of the trail I’m betting… :dance:[/quote]

I take the lead. Just like BO. No wait, that doesn’t sound at all right. :laughing:

I was never that good in math, but if $1000 is 5 times bigger than $200 and the $1000 and $200 are just caps for the donations above and below them respectively, then wouldn’t that mean having 1/3 of your money come from bigger chunks not being as significant than 1/2 of your money coming from much smaller chunks (and therefore far more people)?

Let me work on the math for this. Say, 10,000 people give exactly $200. That means he has gotten $2,000,000 from 10,000 people. His total is $4,000,000. 1/3 of that is 1.3 million and at $1000 a pop, that’s only 1,300 people. So that would theoretically mean that the ratio of those who contribute less and may have less to contribute (middle- to lower-class) outnumber the richer contributers at a rate of almost 10:1. The real numbers would put an even higher ratio for the less-than-rich since few people are needed to contribute more than $1000 and more people are needed to match the totals if giving less than $200.

Now, considering the fact that that’s a lot closer to what the economy is like than McCain’s numbers (or what Bush’s numbers were, for that matter), that helps me sleep easier to know that his strings are not being pulled mainly by the rich.

[quote]that helps me sleep easier to know that his strings are not being pulled mainly by the rich.[/quote]How many politicians answer to the poor?

When worse comes to worse, Obama will behave like all scumbaggy politicians and he’ll Obendover for big pharma, or oil, or any other number of PACs.

Seems to be some kind of cognitive dis-connects with some of the interpretations I’m seeing of this article.

Right now they’re aboot even in the polls.

A particular demo drop for Barry and rise for McCain is in the 19 - 29 age bracket.

It would appear that political sobriety is entering the mix.[/quote]

obamacures.com/

That doesn’t prove much, other than that he is more popular than either of them.

:sunglasses:[/quote]
Obama has raised about 4 times as much money as McCain.
About 35% of Obama’s money is from donations of $1,000 or more.
About 75% of McCain’s money is from donations of $1,000 or more.

Right now they’re aboot even in the polls.

A particular demo drop for Barry and rise for McCain is in the 19 - 29 age bracket.

It would appear that political sobriety is entering the mix.[/quote]

obamacures.com/[/quote]
You should have quoted that post directly above your’s instead.

Interesting stuff. Can McCain’s be similarly broken down? I find the support of major financiers encouraging, what does it say for his economic policy?

Ahhh. TainanCowboy. I have no idea what you are talking about. Your quote doesn’t really match your comments on the quote.

[quote]An early Obamabot thread piously proclaimed that the Obamamessiah was funding his run with the help of “the little people.” Of course no one with a lick of sense in their head was buying such BS…never the less it was a big ticket ride for a lot of people.
[/quote]

  1. only 1/3 of Obama’s funds come from large donations;
  2. you label the claim that his campaign "was funding his run with the help of ‘the little people.’ " BS.

I’m having trouble reconciling how you get from 1 to 2. Can you 'splain to me please?

Perhaps I’m missing a little context here. Let me see… In 2004, George Bush had 32% of his cash from small donors ($200 or less) and 49% of his cash from large donors ($2,300 or more). The rest (about 19%) was from intermediate donors. Kerry’s 2004 numbers were 31% from small donors, 35% from big donors and the rest (about 34%) from intermediate donors.

Now, let’s see. So far, more than a quarter (28%) of John McCain’s cash comes from the “little guys” and a smidge more than half (53%) from the “big guys”, and if you do the math, you 19% for the remainder. Ohhh. Now I see the problem… For Barack Obama, he gets a paltry 48% of his donations from small donors and a whopping (ginormous even) 26% from big donors (26% for the rest).

Goodness me. I should probably just not have written this. However could I have doubted your sagacious observations on the top heavy nature of Obama’s campaign donor base? I apologize for the hastiness of the start of my message. I was wrong. /snark

Sources:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2004

Goodness me…I tried to write in large letters and do it slowly. My bad.

Its called HYPOCRISY…and his chump-monkeys are devoting themselves to eating it hook, line & sinker.

Thanks for the clarification. Although by the time I finished writing my post, I had seen the error of my ways, o pithy one.

Sarcasm aside, do you even realize the triviality of what you are saying? Since the start of McCain-Feingold, Barack Obama has financed his campaign with a larger share of small donors than any previous candidate who finished with more than 25% of the vote. In other words, he has the largest proportion of smaller donors EVER. (Before McCain-Feingold, it was even worse.) So, you castigate him for not meeting your expectations or the expectations of some hypothetical person who expects him to rely on even fewer large donations.

Seriously, what do you think is reasonable to expect? His numbers cut Bush’s large donor proportion by 47%, Kerry’s by 26% and McCain’s by 51%. So, what exactly is your point? His donor base has the highest proportion of small donors by a long shot. Isn’t that good enough? And be so kind as to point out the nature of the hypocrisy? As I read it, the “obamabots” who are promoting the small donor strategy are proud that Obama has broken all records in that regard. How is that hypocritical? Should they accept nothing less than a pledge by Obama to accept no donations exceeding $999.99?

Not that I think Obama is a god or McCain a devil. But it disheartens me to see a man like McCain with so much potential so sloppily supported. And seriously, Obama’s candidacy is tons easier to rip to bloody shreds than you are making it seem. As an Obama sympathizer, I could plant more doubts about him playing devil’s advocate than you’ve managed to do when it is apparent you have serious doubts about him.

Oh, and by the way, I love the basset hound avatar. We raised several when I was growing up. I wish I had one here.

hanks…the avatar actually is a GIF with the ears flapping in the wind…which I thought was pretty funny. However, when I resized it and made its file size smaller I seem to have lost its GIF properties. Still kind of cute though. We raised beagles when I was a kid but a next door neighbor had a couple of bassets…very lovable dogs that also loved to run the fields. But they collected a lot of burrs on their very low bellies.

The hypocrisy is that Obama is being promoted as something other than a run-of-the-mill ego driven tool. He’s junior senator with a shady background, no accomplishments, 143 days on the job and is being made into a ‘cult-of-personality’ rather than a viable candidate for the POTUS.

I think that supplies a lot of fodder for political gad-flies like myself. Just sorry to see people putting so much ‘hope’ and energy into such an empty suit creation.
His handlers have even called Michelle in for a ‘media make-over.’
Anyway, the main guns out for Barry are coming from teh [i[Hillary![/i] crowd. She’s going to eat his a** up and spit him out. Denver is going to be a show-down worthy of an Old West movie…High Noon.