http://www.npr.org/2012/08/23/
http://www.newyorker.com/
As we know, Obama got a lot of corporate money in 2008, but also got an unprecedented amount from small and/or online donations. Though what really won the fundraising battle vs. McCain was his success with "medium donors". His campaign got many people to donate the $5K max directly to Obama, and those people spread the word and got their friends to do the same. So it was really grassroots, viral fundraising - but of course the demographic that is able to give $5K and expect nothing in return (apart from a photo and a fancy dinner) is not your typical Democrat or American. Nevertheless, he won partly by "democratizing" the fundraising process more than any other candidate in our lifetimes.
But in 2011-2012, his base is less enthusiastic (also the curse of the incumbent with several unrealized expectations), and some of his corporate backers have fled because Romney and the GOP are just a more lucrative investment (with a better chance of victory than McCain). Plus Obama's "tough talk" on corporate excesses and financial reform (even if mostly toothless) didn't win over many fans in the business world. Obama is still heavily beating Romney on individual direct donations, but those $5K gifts here and there pale in comparison to the indirect, limitless giving enabled by Citizens United and other loopholes (casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has given $40M to pro-Romney superPACs and has offered to give as much as $100M total). Some nonprofit groups can also raise basically limitless donations and don't even have to divulge donor identities. Technically they just can't be under the "direct control" of the campaign or party, but their objectives are clearly aligned. And since the election will pretty much be decided by less-educated, less-informed swing voters in 7 states (6% of our population or less), having a ton of cash to blitz those folks with endless ads could be the key to victory.
Why haven't Obama and the Dems jumped on that bandwagon to fight fire with fire? Well first of all, Obama and the Dems of course opposed the CitUtd ruling, and did not participate as enthusiastically out of principle. Second, fewer rich people seem to favor Obama over Romney, for obvious financial reasons. Third, Obama isn't a social butterfly pandering to the big donors like some other candidates, either due to his personality or political philosophy. I am sure he and his team are holding the secret VIP retreat now and then, but not to the level of W Bush or Clinton (who was known to "rent out" the Lincoln Bedroom). Big Dem donors are a fussy bunch, so if they don't feel that the POTUS is showing them enough love, they keep their checkbooks at home. If they're not giving out of financial self-interest, then they have to give to a cause (or just hate the thought of a GOP victory like Bill Maher). Bezos gave a lot of money to support a pro-gay-marriage nonprofit that is also supporting Obama. But other liberal causes (green energy, civil rights, antiwar, organized labor, etc.) have pretty much suffered under Obama (though less than under Romney of course), so the rich people who care about those causes are probably less likely to give big to the president.
No comments:
Post a Comment