Obama's clean money

By John Rentoul

Terrific article in The Atlantic on the extraordinary fund-raising success of the Barack Obama campaign. Funny stuff, money, especially in America, Brobdingnag of revolutionary capitalism, where the giants of each wave eat their parents: IBM, Microsoft, Google.

The numbers are so large as to have no meaning. Obama has raised a quarter of a billion dollars so far. What is more "he is doing it almost effortlessly". Quite unlike the traditional top-down model of political fund-raising where the candidate has to work dinners and small rooms hard to raise large cheques, this is a vast, self-generated and self-sustaining internet phenomenon in which thousands of people all over America have spontaneously decided to raise small donations from Facebook friends and social networks.

The social-networking model provided Obama with something that insurgents before him, from Gary Hart to McCain, always lacked: a means of capturing excitement and translating it into money. In the 2004 primary, Howard Dean raised $27 million online. Obama is fast approaching $200 million.

In the classic American style (the article is 5,000 words long), Joshua Green details the technological and social changes, and the astute decisions of the candidate, that saw Hillary Clinton's brilliantly organised existing-model campaign simply overwhelmed.

While his rivals continued to depend on big givers, Obama gained more and more small donors, until they finally eclipsed the big ones altogether. In February, the Obama campaign reported that 94 percent of their donations came in increments of $200 or less, versus 26 percent for Clinton and 13 percent for McCain. Obama’s claim of 1,276,000 donors through March is so large that Clinton doesn’t bother to compete; she stopped regularly providing her own number last year.

This has huge implications for politics here as well as there. Obama has realised the campaign-finance reformers' goal of ending the control exerted by a handful of rich donors.

He has done this not by limiting money but by adding much, much more of it — democratizing the system by flooding it with so many new contributors that their combined effect dilutes the old guard to the point that it scarcely poses any threat.

The crowning paradox is that Obama's opponent in November, John McCain, made his name for independence and integrity as an advocate of campaign-finance reform.

Comments

[Rajesh]

Do you remember MA Senator Kennedy sharing his mailing list with Obama? Obama received a huge influx of contributions immediately after it happened.

[maz hess]

Obama has the ability to change the political landscape for the generations to came. So why are the so called super-delegates still waiting to endorse him? Do they wait that he will turn water into wine or that he will throw this money at their heads?

[flipped]

It looks like many Americans are voting for Obama with their bank accounts and Hillary should really be asking herself why and why isn't she getting this kind of financial support from the rank and file.

[scousekraut]

When you look at this man's record in Washington and before you find that he has done absolutely nothing. Having done absolutely nothing so far how did he get to become a candidate?

Clearly he is favoured by "The Money", otherwise they would not have allowed him to get this far. Any candidate can be destroyed at any time through the media simply by putting out enough "Dirt". Some "Dirt" has recently leaked out in the Globe and The National Enquirer but has had no effect.

All this talk of "Change" is just that. Talk. We have seen it all before so many times yet still people fall for it. It is understandable. Most people are desperate for change. Desperate to see a responsible President that will stop all these mad Zionist motivated wars.

However, this man has Brezinsky as his foreign policy mentor so the chances of him persuing a responsible foreign policy are zero.

[scousekraut]

When you look at this man's record in Washington and before you find that he has done absolutely nothing. Having done absolutely nothing so far how did he get to become a candidate?

Clearly he is favoured by "The Money", otherwise they would not have allowed him to get this far. Any candidate can be destroyed at any time through the media simply by putting out enough "Dirt". Some "Dirt" has recently leaked out in the Globe and The National Enquirer but has had no effect.

All this talk of "Change" is just that. Talk. We have seen it all before so many times yet still people fall for it. It is understandable. Most people are desperate for change. Desperate to see a responsible President that will stop all these mad Zionist motivated wars.

However, this man has Brezinsky as his foreign policy mentor so the chances of him persuing a responsible foreign policy are zero.

[GV]

So Obama "invented" this???

Why aren't Ron Paul's single day donations mentioned?

[amy]

Obama had done nothing but a good campaign. For those using campaign performance as a way to judge a candidate, I think you are wrong. That is what got Bush into the office-his funding raising in 2000 and 2004 were both record breaking. And that is how Gore and Kerry lost - they didn't have a good campaign. When can Americans wake up????

For a man who now needs to wear a flag pin to show off his patriosm, who did say 57 "states" (not "contests", who was so strong about dealing with Afganistan yet didn't even know people there don't not speak Arabic, a man who spent most of his 1-year senate tenure out campaigning and funding raising for himself and other democrats, are there any substance that you can provide that Obama can deliver what he has promised?

I do know the things he promised but did not keep his words:

He promised that he will serve the senate term for Il for one term, he didn't.

He promised to get tough on the nuclear plant immission and claimed he passed a law, he in fact didn't (and lied)

He promised to unitfy the country, yet he sat in a racist church for 20 years. Ophra left the church, why didn't he?

He promised he cared about people, yet 11 of Rezko's defunct public-subsidized projects are in his district. When asked about the situation, he said he was not aware -- how could he? some buildings are right cross street from his office.

Here is recent discover of his lies: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/obamaclap.html

He has nothing to prove his claims.

[Mark_IV]

Obama did vote against the Iraq war, one thing which gives him a lot of credibility. Another is that he isn't a lawyer.

Probably more should be done here to shake up political funding. We keep getting little scandals, then things go quiet again.

Let all the parties subscribe to a system where no-one can donate more than (say) £200. Then there sill be no suspicion of undue influence by the wealthy minority.

[Marlene W]

Note to Mark_IV - You wrote -"Obama did vote against the Iraq war, one thing which gives him a lot of credibility. Another is that he isn't a lawyer."

Mark - My man, - HE IS A LAWYER (from Harvard). HE TEACHES LAW ALSO! THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MAKES HIM NOT CREDITABLE.

Education:
- Graduated: Columbia University (1983) - Major: Political Science
- Law Degree from Harvard (1991) - Major: J.D. - Magna Cum Laude

[O Please]

There seems to be a lot of 'bitter working class people' in here. Well bitter working class Americans should all should get what they want either Hillary or McCain. Only after four more years of manipulative nonsense are those bitter folks going to come to their senses. Pending if they can get past their long standing bigotry and ignorance.

[O Please]

There seems to be a lot of 'bitter working class people' in here. Well bitter working class Americans should all should get what they want either Hillary or McCain. Only after four more years of manipulative nonsense are those bitter folks going to come to their senses. Pending if they can get past their long standing bigotry and ignorance.

[Marlene W]

Note to O Please - Your comment about "bitter working class people" in here. You then went on and stated "Well bitter working class Americans should all should get...."

Yes, I "WORK" for a living. Sounds from your writings - you don't - could it be you're living off of the sugar tit?

And Yes, I WILL be VOTING FOR Senator John McCain - a true hero.

Oh, By the Way - I'm not a bigot and MOST CERTAINLY NOT IGNORANT!

Good Day to you too!

[JSmith]

For all those who claim Obama has no experience well consider this fact:

Abraham Lincoln had precisely the same experience as Obama before he went on to become the Greatest president of USA. Abraham linclon was an Illinois state legislator for 8 years, after which he had two years of experience in the national Congress.

Barack Obama has 8 years of experience in Illinois state senate and 2 years of experience in US senate. Obama also taught Constitutional Law for 11 years in one of America's top law schools - University of Chicago (Ranked 4th Gruman report). Obama was invited to join Faculty as a full time tenure track professor in that university countless number of times.

So here we have a choice:
5 years of POW in Vietcong.
8 years of serving tea as a first lady.
or 11 years of teaching Constitutional law in one of America's top law schools.

[sajith]

Obama shows His Talent and ability in whatever He touches. Be it Politics, be it Campaign, Be it Fund Raising. No body doubt about his religion after his pastor's remarks. No body doubt about his popularity stunt after after the Gas tax Refusal. Surly he is the Chanakyan of USA. Other wise he will not have risen from nowhere to beat Hillary.

I sure he will show his skills as president also and will lead the world to new direction
Regards
Free greetings .