As the inauguration of Barack Obama draws nearer, the reality behind the Mainstream Media’s mythical Obama of Campaign 2008 is beginning to emerge bit by bit. First was the myth that Obama would drawing millions of new voters to the polls, swelling turnout to record levels. But when the votes were counted, turn-out was virtually the same as four years prior.
Now it turns out the myth of Obama inspiring millions of new small donations, primarily from the Internet, is also not quite the entire turth about how his campaign was financed. The Campaign Finance Institute’s analysis of FEC records found little difference between Obama donors in 08 and Bush donors in 04:
“Although an unusually high percentage (49%) of Obama’s funds came in discrete contributions of $200 or less (see Table 3), only 26% of his money through August 31 (and 24% of his funds through October 15, according to the most recent FEC reports) came from donors whose total contributions aggregated to $200 or less. Obama’s 26% compares to 25% for George W. Bush in 2004, 20% for John Kerry in 2004, 21% for John McCain in 2008, 13% for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and 38% for Howard Dean in 2004.”
It turns out that Obama did inspire a record number of small donors, but the total proportion of his funding that came from large donors was even greater:
“These totals force a reality check. In McCain’s case, a $100 million figure from bundlers would represent almost all of the money he raised from large donors ($122 million). In Obama’s case, one should combine the estimated $90 million or so he received with the help of bundlers through August with the remaining $120 million or so from other large donors, and then compare it to the $119 million he raised from small donors through August. The comparison should make one think twice before describing small donors as the financial engine of the Obama campaign.”
Thus, myth and reality don’t quite match up, according to CFI:
“None of these findings denies the importance of either Obama’s appeal to repeat donors or his innovative use of online social networking tools to interweave appeals for contributions and critically important campaign volunteers. In particular, Obama did attract repeaters who have not been part of the traditional large-dollar, reception-attending fundraising crowd. The fact is that Obama’s financial juggernaut broke records at all contribution levels. The reality does not match the myth, but the reality itself was impressive.”
Go here for the full report from CFI.
If turnout and financial contributions are the basic measure of the success of a campaign, it appears the Obama effort was no more effective than ohter recent efforts, despite the incessant portrayal to the contrary by the Mainstream Media and the crowing of the Obama campaign itself throughout the primary campaign season.
Perhaps the demonstration of how radically the Internet has changed American politics is yet to be mounted?
