Big Money Doesn't Come from Big Money
Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 08:46:22 PM PDT
Yochai Benkler has put forth the idea of a Networked Mode of Production, something of an evolution on the scale of the Industrial Revolution or the Agricultural Revolution. It is an idea I strongly agree with, but many people can't seem to grasp. Their difficulty often comes in their inability to comprehend the power of massed support.
There is contention by a great many people that the money being sloshed around is yet further illustration of the power of Big Business (and such) in the influence of American Politics. My interest specifically lies with Obama, in this post, in which I illustrate rather concisely that the assertion it is impossible to raise millions of dollars, using a large base of people, and taking very small (relatively) contributions, is completely false.
I welcome any challenge to my assertions and assumptions, am willing to revise, discuss, and reconsider anything I put forth. I believe, however, the very basic analysis I provide (in terms of assumptions) will clearly demonstrate that a lot of people, working independently, and gathering small amounts of money can achieve a great deal of success.
Base assumptions, some numbers smoothed for ease of calculation:
ASSUMPTIONS:
- 50% of 100.000 donor number comes from online sources.
- Total of 25m$ raised
- 7m$ comes from online sources.
- 90% of Online sources come from small donors (Source)
Common facts:
-Obama has not accepted public funding yet, and so can only accept a maximum of 2300$/person
PART I - 90% of Online Donors (45000)
that's 7*.9 = 6.3M$ from donors who contributed 100$ or less.
25m$ - 6.3m$ = 18.7 left, or .7m$ from online sources
PART II - 10% of Online Donors left
5000 online donors unaccounted for. That's an average of 140$/donor.
-300 people contribute 2300$, and
-4500 people contribute 2.22$, or so, each.
Under this model, Obama has accepted only 300 people paying 2300$ each, 45000 people paying 100$ on average, and 4500 people paying 2.22$ average. The average for all 50000 in that group was 140$ each.
PART III - The Offline Donors
Premise: that Obama received a maximum number of 'super donors,' to optimize the "Obama's money comes from big donors!" theory
In this subset there are 50000 people, contributing to 18.7m$, or an average of 374$/donor
-8112 donors contributing donations of 2300$
-42400 donors contributing about .99 cents.
Part IV - Total Analysis
No matter how you cut it, it's sort of impossible for the 'majority' of Obama's support-- certainly not 72% of it as some claim, to have come from "big Donors"
If we define a "Big Donor" as contributing atleast, say, 1000$, Obama would have, given that figure, pulled in a minimum of 72m$, plus some irrelevant change from the 'little guy.' I conclude, thus, it's illogical to make the claim that Obama's sources were the 'big guys,' and it is recommended one reexamines the relevance of the numbers of donors over the numbers of dollars.
If you wish to question my methodology, I'd be willing to listen to your assertions, corrections, and so forth.
Perhaps there was a decimal or rounding error you could point out.
Permalink | 4 comments