The little engine that lied

Cross posted at the Partisan Report


The Obama juggernaut was built off of millions of little pistons, right? So many Americans (and foreigners but we won’t go there for now; read below) believed in Obama and his new form of politics. Millions of small donors, the meager, humble, hopefuls generated support and fueled his candidacy into the history books $20, $50, $100 bucks at a time. Well, it turns out it was a big fat fabrication. And one of many that has recently surfaced about Obama’s fundraising. What is even more interesting and may come at a shock to the left; Obama received roughly the same amount of small donors as President Bush did in 2004.

Barack Obama’s Fundraising and the Small Donor Myth — U.S. News

Barack Obama got his campaign money through tapping a huge small-donor network, right? Mmm, maybe not.

The Campaign Finance Institute released a new study that tallied “small donors,” whose repeated contributions made them medium- or large-size donors. And the study—partially—punctures the myth of the small Obama donor. And it leaves a couple of questions unanswered.

The study found that 49 percent of the contributions Obama received were for under $200; this is the number underlying the claim that Obama had a revolutionary number of small donors. (The like figure was 32 percent for John McCain, 37 percent for John Kerry, and 31 percent for George W. Bush in 2004.) But the study also shows that the percentage of donors giving a total of less than $200 was not dramatically different from that of McCain, Bush, or Kerry.

To wit: 26 percent of Obama donors gave a total of less than $200, which is only a hair more than the 25 percent who gave that amount to George W. Bush in 2004. (McCain: 21 percent, Kerry: 20 percent—I wonder if going further back, one would find a correlation between “winning” in this category and winning the popular presidential vote.)

Report says Obama’s small-donor base claim is off — USA Today

WASHINGTON — Despite attracting millions of new contributors to his campaign, President-elect Barack Obama received about the same percentage of his total political funds from small donors as President Bush did in 2004, according to a study released today by the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute.
The analysis undercuts Obama’s claim that his supporters “changed the way campaigns are funded” by reducing the influence of special-interest givers.

“The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama’s finances,” said Michael Malbin, the institute’s executive director. “The reality of Obama’s fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth.”

My only question to all of this is, of course, where was the media and these ‘reports’ when they were needed most? The national media (are we still calling them that?) was so consumed with Obama and the historical implications of his victory that they refused to look into his number of donors and where they came from, even in light of the fact that he reversed his earlier position on public financing.

Now that several polls are out showing suspicion that Americans have with the media, they are now out in full force attempting to cover their tracks, when in fact the real news was out there.

Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign — News Max

More Bogus Obama Donors Surface — CBS News

When we live in a state of journalism that is more interested in Governor Palin’s reading habits and not on actual meaningful, balanced, coverage, then we find ourselves no longer living in a free society. When free information ceases to be available; disinformation and propaganda becomes the source. Free press and objective journalism is something that is free and guaranteed in our constitution. It is past time we hold them to that.