Display:


10 huge donors over 1000 small donors (none / 0)

If the total amount collected is the same in both cases, 1000 small donors is infinitely better than 10 huge ones.  For one thing, having 10 huge donors increases the likelyhood that you have to give in to thier random whims.  For another thing, having 1000 small donors means many or most of them are willing to volunteer or otherwise do the some of the gruntwork of the campaign.  It also shows true support amoungst the voting populous, as well.  Also, campaign finance reform (McCain/Feingold) means that you can't simply give unlimited funds to the party any more.
by Geotpf on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:30:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 10 huge donors over 1000 small donors (none / 0)

In the end it is the votes that count... I'd rather have 1000 "invested" voters than 10.
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 10 huge donors over 1000 small donors (none / 0)

You all apparently did not read what I wrote.  For instance, a fundraiser last September (I beleive), to be a "host" one had to raise $50K on top of their maximum $2k (yes I am aware of McCain Feingold despite what you claim -- and this is legal as long as the money does not come from one person's checks).  Small donors cannot raise that kind of money.  This also takes a huge burden off the campaign's finance staff.  

This is the only way to but network primetime TV ads and bulk direct mail which are the only ways to reach a sizable portion of your voting block.  You can have all the foot soldiers you want, but you'll never get the same results as TV and direct mail.  

And, to qualify, I am not saying ignore the small donors.  I am merely saying I would prefer 10 big donors over 1000 small ones.

by artvandelay on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 05:06:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]