According to FEC data, over 2.5 million people have made political contributions to the presidential campaign of their choice of $200 or less. That sounds like a large number. That is a large number.
It just doesn’t mean as much as it used to.
Four years ago, President Obama’s campaign made history with their innovative techniques of encouraging small-dollar donors’ involvement. 45 percent of his funds came from individuals who contributed $200 or less. In this election year so far, that percentage has drastically shrunk.
Through June, the 2.5 million people who have made small donations to either presidential campaign represent only 18 percent of the two parties’ total funds. According to Politico, during this election, the top .07 percent of donors is more valuable than the bottom 86 percent. In an election where virtually all we hear from either candidate is the necessity to strengthen our middle class, the fundraising statistics are awfully top-heavy.
Of course, like most things, there are varying opinions on the matter. Some voters think money is money. If both sides are using these Super PACs, there is still a level playing field. Campaign finance directors have no choice but to fall on this side of the argument. In the last election, Obama urged wealthy Democrats not to spend money on third party groups supporting his campaign. Four years later, that message has been forced to change.
But a large amount of voters disagree. They don’t think it’s fair that the fundraising for a general election is being virtually dominated by the super wealthy.
It’s very possible that President Obama won four years ago because he convinced the small-dollar donors – the Average Joe’s, the middle class, the “regular” people – that he would represent their best interest. He developed a relationship with the people, and they showed their appreciation by contributing financially. Yes, the checks were small – five, ten, fifty dollars – but giving money seemed to provide his supporters with an invaluable sense of involvement with the campaign. That connection between candidates and voters may suffer if Super PACs continue financially overshadowing armies of small donors.
The small donor revolution that President Obama’s campaign pioneered four years ago seems to be coming to a sudden halt. Was this inevitable? Will it impact the upcoming election?
Those questions could be answered in the next few months.
Tags: Donor Contribution, FEC, Obama, Super PACs