Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Actually the Obama campaign was responsible for raising the vast majority of campaign funds. He was hugely successful in using the internet, not only to do fund raising, but to develop a grass roots - er, silicone roots - organization. He was not the first to use the internet for fundraising, but he used it in a way that changed the game.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
"We're setting the bar for a small donor as someone who gives $200 or less. The Federal Election Commission rules say that someone who gives this amount does not need to publicly disclose their name, address, occupation and employer.
In the general election, Obama got about 34 percent of his individual donations from small donors, people who gave $200 or less, according to a report from the Campaign Finance Institute. Another 23 percent of donations came from people who gave between $201 and $999, and another 42 percent from people who gave $1,000 or more.
His numbers for the primary were similar. He got about 30 percent of his money from donors who gave $200 or less. Another 28 percent of donations came from people who gave between $201 and $999, and 43 percent from people who gave $1,000 or more.
These numbers were compiled by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, and included in a report Reform in an Age of Networked Campaigns, which was published jointly with the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute."
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ge-donors-too/
I've wondered about how well the "grassroots" campaign was monitored. I would assume that for small donations there was no paper trail to where the donation came. By any measure, it's too damn much money for a campaign. Perhaps, limits ought be set for maximum expenditures on a campaign. Christ, that sounds like a recycled left wing idea. BTW, the campaign circus will be in full swing shortly.