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. NewsBarack 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 TodayWASHINGTON — 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.
The little engine that lied
Not So Fast: Elections Officials May Audit Obama’s Fundraising
Why now? Was the plan to wait for him to become president first?According to a published report earlier this week, the Federal Election Commission is unlikely to vote to audit the Obama campaign finances, and will sweep aside a formal demand for an full audit that was filed by the Republican National Committee on Oct. 6.
But interviews with current and former FEC officials, as well as a review of public statements by FEC commissioners, suggest that the commission could pursue an “audit for cause” of the Obama campaign, based in part on allegations of widespread fraud and illegal donors as reported by Newsmax.com and other publications during the election season.
“There are standards in a bureaucratic sense for who might be eligible for an audit for cause,” said FEC spokesman Bob Biersack. “Those are objective standards. Committees that meet those standards are eligible to be audited.”
Confusion or concern with information in the campaign finance reports submitted by the committees are generally what trigger such an audit, Biersack added.
Such concerns can include a significant number of donors who have exceeded the limits of $2,300 per election. According to the Obama campaign’s own disclosures, more than 4,000 of its donors fit that bill.
Those concerns can also include receiving money from foreign donors. The FEC compiled a list last month of more than 16,000 contributions from overseas sources. A Newsmax survey of roughly one-fifth of those names found 118 individuals who appeared to be foreign citizens.
