Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders

In millions of dollars, here is the total amount of money most presidential candidates raised from large donors (those who gave over $1,000) and small donors (those who gave under $200). I left out a few candidates whose fundraising was so small as to not be worth a mention (source):
Candidate Large Donors Small Donors
Clinton 22.2 2.27
Obama 17.5 5.77
Romney 18.3 1.23
Giuliani 13.9 1.09
Edwards 10.8 2.04
McCain 9.9 2.54
Richardson 4.9 0.6
Dodd 3.4 0.1
Biden 1.84 0.1
Brownback 0.4 0.75
Tancredo 0.15 0.92
Paul 0.3 0.25
Kucinich 0.1 0.3
All Democrats 60.70 11.12
All Republicans 44.18 6.93

This table tells us several things. First, while small donations to Democratic candidates have greatly increased over the past four years, large donors are still firmly in command. Second, Obama completely dominates the field in terms of small donors, as he brought in twice as much from small donors as any other candidate, and over half of all small donor dollars for all Democratic candidates. Third, the Republican grassroots, while small, are not keen on the "frontrunners." For example, minnows Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo combined for as much small donor support as Giuliani and Romney combined. That is pretty stunning when you think about it, as it is the equivalent of Biden, Kucinich and Gravel racking up as much small donor support as Clinton and Edwards combined. That bodes extremely well for the general election, where small donor Republicans seem unlikely to help close the fundraising gap the Republican nominee will apparently face. Also, it is interesting that McCain managed to come in second in terms of small donors. I guess there are still some grassroots activists who actually still believe he is a principled maverick.

Perhaps the most intriguing, and somewhat saddening, lesson from all this is that Democrats managed to pull ahead of Republicans in fundraising, but they did so on the backs of very large donors. Our $4.2M advantage in small donors is nothing compared to our $16.5M advantage in large donors. Without public financing of some sort, or at lest without a reduction in the maximum contribution limit, large donors will control the political money race for the foreseeable future.

Also, Adam B, who sent me an email tipping me off to these numbers, has a more detailed chart on this subject over at Dailykos.



Display:


Re: Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders (none / 0)

Reducing the donation cap is a poor solution.  It will simply funnel more money into less regulated or accountable political accounts and increase the time candidates need to spend raising money.


by rcipw on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:32:16 PM EST

This supports an hypothesis I stated earlier (none / 0)

Chris wrote a great piece on the democratic base earlier today - in my study of the piece, made an hypothesis that lobbyist money is still in control .. viz..

feel that partisanship without the resolved issue of legislation actually being written by and for the people , is like going to your doctor and having him give you the medicine he prescribed for the rich patient or to advertise a drug for a pharma and not to treat your illness but to administer a cure that has in the end, only to enrich the doctor, the rich patient or the pharma

Obama amongst all other candidates seems to understand best that without truly fundamental change, on the order of shutting down the lobbyist contributions - and especially following Obama's ethics reform package and especially the full spirit of that package would be the best way to deal with the problem. Independents, who would be called by another name - for the sake of brevity - exist in particular in the branch of government whose charge is to aright this imbalance. Though they may look endangered, remember than 9 members of one court can in theory modify almost every single legal principle and precept in the united states.

11% - Although it does seem like a small amount of money please let me add a humble observation  - that this is 11% of approximately 100 million dollars, thats 11 million dollars. Thats alot of scratch. Its early in the game. The answer for this kind of reform, is frankly, a new kind of politics and change at the most fundamental and philosophical levels of government.

And that is of course possible...


.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven
by heyAnita on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:00:07 PM EST

Re: This supports an hypothesis I stated earlier (none / 0)

How does Obama understand shutting down lobbyists best?  For one thing, John Edwards does not accept contributions from PACs and lobbyists.  While Obama has pledged that as well, (second point), he has instituted a program to raise cash from the networks of these lobbyists, including have their spouses be the contributors as well as having people at a given lobbyists firm that are not registered to lobby making contributions.

Sounds to me like he's just coming up with convenient ways around his "ethics pledge."


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This supports an hypothesis I stated earlier (none / 0)

But the question becomes would Edwards return donations from a Lobbyist's family?  Has it come up?  It doesn't sound like his supporters are actively seeking them out, but if one did, would he return them?  If Elizabeth is reading or a member of the campaign (or if anyone has a link) , I would love to know... I'm just curious the policies of all the candidates.  And I'm not looking for what some THINKS they'd do... I'd like actual confirmation.  


by yitbos96bb on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:04:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders (none / 0)

It is very sad that the small donors are still not as much of a force as I hoped we would be.  But, there is a place for the larger ones as well.  they are like a bank.  They put the infusion of ready and badly needed cash in. The expense of television ads are enormous.  I live in a small market but, my daughter sells ad time on television and the costs are remarkable.  
Until all the people and just the junkies like us kick into campaigns, the large donors are going to continue to be a necessary evil.  and will be the dominate force.
But, we just have to keep trying.

by vwcat on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:14:40 PM EST

Re: Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders (none / 0)

See my post below.  

I'm sure that there are plenty of people who give $100 or $50 here and there who aggregate over $200.  We are not large donors even if we aggregate over the FEC reporting limit.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:30:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders (none / 0)

Obama made 17.5 million from big donors?????

That sure as hell puts thing into more accurate perspective.

Obama courts the fat cats as much as Hillary!!


by samueldem on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:28:24 PM EST

Re: Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders (none / 0)

That's kind of a ridiculous statement.  While Obama raised more, his percentage coming from large donors is smaller than Edwards and Clintons by nearly 10 to 15%.  Do the math:

84.1% of Edwards's donations came from the large donors column.  

        10.8 mill/12.84 mill = 84%

75.2% of Obama's donations come from the large donors column.

        17.5 mill/23.27 mill = 75.2%

90.7% of Clinton's donations come from the large donors column.

        22.2 mill/24.47 mill = 90.7%

SO he didn't get the most from large donors, nor the least but of the big 3 the percentage of his donations from large donors was smallest.  

And given that Obama got twice the amount of the next closest in small donors (or more than both Clinton and Edwards combined) , he is strongly going after both groups.  This proves he is 1) a strong fundraiser and 2) while you might not support him, he does have a decent base of support.  Obviously the big thing will be Q2, when we see if candidates continue momentum (equal or better Q1 numbers) or if they are not as effective.  


by yitbos96bb on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:59:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders (none / 0)

I think that there has been an error in consideration.

"Small donors" to me imply people who are giving small amounts.  Sometimes, those folks give more than once and that aggregates over $200.  But they are still small donors, especially when compared to large donors, and even more so compared to those who max out with a single check.

For example, I give money every month to John Edwards through ActBlue as a recurring deduction from my checking account (always with a tip!) and I've made seperate individual contributions.  I might max out, but it will be through small donations, and never one large check.

I would include people like me in the small donor pool.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:29:22 PM EST

Re: Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders (none / 0)

I thought he did... I thought the $1000 mark was in one swoop... Maybe I am misreading though.  


by yitbos96bb on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:46:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders (none / 0)

This accounts for only a very small portion of the difference you see here.
by Chris Bowers on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:49:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donor Demographics for (none / 0)

Is it odd that medium donors, $200-$1000 account for only 7% of the total? Because big donors are 79%  and small are 14%.

Seems mathematically unlikely to me, but I suppose this is a political truth not a mathematical one. Just ... odd. I wonder how these percentages would change if we fiddled with where we drew the lines.


by BingoL on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:03:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders (none / 0)

Wow... That $70 million is looking nice for whoever gets the nom... I have to assume they will be able to get most of that in general... if not, we are going to be in trouble as it means a lot of the party isn't behind the nominee... which would suck regardless of the nominee.


by yitbos96bb on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:45:48 PM EST

Tancredo (none / 0)

That's a very interesting number; it suggests to me that the major GOP candidates will have to pander to the anti-immigration wing of their party, and hard.


by Adam B on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:51:35 PM EST

Re: Tancredo (none / 0)

You think they'll just shred all pretense and come out with a "Get rid of all the brown people" before all is said and done.  Boy they (the GOP) make me sick.


by yitbos96bb on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:00:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tancredo (none / 0)

Can't wait for his convention speech.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:05:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tancredo (none / 0)

Yeah... I envision scenes from THE WALL where Tancredo gives us his version of In the Flesh.  


by yitbos96bb on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders (none / 0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us/pol itics/16donate.html?hp

This is an article in the NYT today about the donors, in particular Hillary's and Obama's donors.


by Kingstongirl on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:30:11 PM EST

Re: Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders (3.00 / 1)

I would like to see the percentages, so here they are. I apologize that I haven't figured out how to easily make it into a table.

Candidate Large Donors Small Donors Total % Large % Small
 Clinton 22.2 2.27 24.47 90.7% 9.3%
 Obama 17.5 5.77 23.27 75.2% 24.8%
 Romney 18.3 1.23 19.53 93.7% 6.3%
 Giuliani 13.9 1.09 14.99 92.7% 7.3%
 Edwards 10.8 2.04 12.84 84.1% 15.9%
 McCain 9.9 2.54 12.44 79.6% 20.4%
 Richardson 4.9 0.6 5.5 89.1% 10.9%
 Dodd 3.4 0.1 3.5 97.1% 2.9%
 Biden 1.84 0.1 1.94 94.8% 5.2%
 Brownback 0.4 0.75 1.15 34.8% 65.2%
 Tancredo 0.15 0.92 1.07 14.0% 86.0%
 Paul 0.3 0.25 0.55 54.5% 45.5%
 Kucinich 0.1 0.3 0.4 25.0% 75.0%
 All Democrats 60.7 11.12 71.82 84.5% 15.5%
 All Republicans 44.18 6.93 51.11 86.4% 13.6%

One thing which stands out is that Obama, Edwards, and McCain stand out as having a relatively higher percentage of funds from small donors, with the exception of those with a much smaller amount of total funds. I'll leave further interpretation to others.


by Hong Kong Chevy on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:43:03 AM EST

Re: Donor Demographics for Presidential Contenders (none / 0)

Bummer.  I've been thinking of giving Obama a chunk of my tax refund because Obama is Da Man IMHO, but that'll make me a "large donor".  So if for some reason I wanted to be counted (in this count) as a small donor I'd have to write a bunch of checks for 199.99 and cap it off with whatever it is that makes me reach the 2300 number.  I think that would make too much work for me.  Much easier to just write a check for 2300 and be done with it.

BTW I've never given anything to any candidate.


by EdB on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:42:21 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.