So, the NYT has an article up on its website about how the small donors that supposedly propelled Obama to victory didn't actually exist. No, it was conventional large donors what done it, or so the article suggests.
Except even a cursory glance at the numbers shows us that this isn't the case.
Firstly, this was a race that played out as much in the primary season as it was the post-convention time. Imagine a donor that first gave $20 after the Iowa Caucus, and then $20 a month from that time until November. 11 times 20 - 220, and apparently no longer a small donor as a consequence. No, I'm sure that a lot of the donors didn't give in this way, but the concept that someone without a great deal of money might give several times in small amounts - most people would still see that as a 'small' donor. This isn't someone trying to hide a large amount, it's people without much or not wanting to give a lot at once giving repeatedly.
Secondly, let's take the definition of 'small donor'. For the purposes of the government, that's defined as someone who gives under $200. Which seems reasonable, and certainly if we looked at that through the lens of a conventional campaign contribution which comes at the tail end and all in one amount it fits. But if we accept the above point that these are still small donors, we also have to ask ourselves - is $200 once every four years over a long stretch of time really that much? I'm not trying to suggest that the money couldn't make a difference to a family, especially in these times. but really, it's still not that much. Less than many people will spend in a year on booze, cigarettes, or even presents this holiday time. Perspective is a useful thing.
Thirdly, consider how much money Obama actually raised in the election. By some reports, it was virtually more than they could find useful ways of spending. In the three months of post-convention campaigning he certainly raised in excess of $250 million (and I'm being conservative here). About 50%, or $125 Million, came from small donors - almost $50 million more than McCain got from taking public financing. And that's being harsh about his numbers. Says more than a little about just how powerful small donors can be.
And as a final thought, if this were to be used by any conservative thought-places as evidence that the campaign had nothing to do with the people and everything to do with big money? Just take a glance at the disparity in the ground games. If you want evidence that it was a wave of small donors that bought this president to the white house, just look at how people turned out for him giving something far, far more valuable than money (and I mean this purely in deeply cynical politico terms): Time.