Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Buying the election...

OK, so Obama has broken fundraising records. Not just broken, smashed them.

The latest Republican cry is that he's buying the election.

But who is buying the election? Obama has absurdly large amounts of cash on hand, true. His average donation, though, is $84. Yep, all those hundreds of millions that he's raised comes out to $84/person. If he's buying the election, he's buying it retail.

That's a lot better for the country than the fat-cat large-donor "buy it wholesale" that the Republicans have attempted in previous election seasons.


( 13 comments — Leave a comment )
Oct. 20th, 2008 01:35 am (UTC)
Not just the Republicans.

That was what killed Hillary Clinton -- her big donors were only willing to support so much.

Oct. 20th, 2008 02:04 am (UTC)
Here in Red State country, they are accusing him of getting it from terrorists who are making all the small donations.
Oct. 20th, 2008 02:25 am (UTC)
But I AM!
Oct. 20th, 2008 02:27 am (UTC)
Yeah, god forbid that cash from individual citizens should influence an election. Everyone knows only corporations have that right.

But I guess the real problem is that the money isn't coming from 'real' Americans.
Oct. 20th, 2008 03:57 am (UTC)

I can't think of anything to add to this. Thank you, well said.
Oct. 20th, 2008 02:45 am (UTC)
That is why Obama decided to not get the Federal Funds. He already knew from the Primaries how much Little People Money he was getting. The People were already voting with their donations!
It is quite impressive. May it be the Sign of Things to Come.
Oct. 20th, 2008 03:18 am (UTC)
Tangentially related (well, kinda):
As lawmakers and Wall Street Bigwigs are patting each other's backs, it should be useful to mention that Lehman CEO contributed heavily to Democrats - over Republicans nearly 5-to-1!
The Last Debt Orgy


Oct. 20th, 2008 04:31 am (UTC)
Corporations and corporate leaders almost always contribute to both parties.

I wonder if the discrepancy is because the Republicans are alread fully in their pockets and it costs more to buy the Democrats each time.
Oct. 20th, 2008 11:29 am (UTC)
Well, it might help explain why the cabal Paulson let Lehman fail while saving others. There does appear to be a pattern of preference going on there.


Oct. 20th, 2008 07:51 am (UTC)
Do the math. $84 divided into (according to the October 13 Newsweek) $485,000,000 = 5,773,810 donors. That's about 10% of the number of people who cast a vote for John Kerry in 2004. I really don't think so.
Oct. 20th, 2008 11:27 am (UTC)
That's one thing that sort of puzzled me as well. Unless it's counting individual *donations* and not *contributors*; where a single person donates multiple times. This could skew the number some, and who's to say how it would be reported. Accuracy? We've heard of it.


Oct. 20th, 2008 04:54 pm (UTC)
His website, facebook and even an iPhone app. all make it very easy for an individual to donate. Hey, I'm on of them! So I imagine that he does have into the millions of individual donations at 25 to 100+ each. So he can buy the election with regular people giving him what support they can. And kudos to him for using modern technology.
Oct. 21st, 2008 02:19 am (UTC)

Yeah, Obama is popular and the digital age makes it real easy for folk to fill his coffers with small individual donations.

It's also just as easy to "astroturf" the thing and keep sliding money in below the reporting requirements.

There's no way to tell, at present. And they've already uncovered at least some substantial fraud within the sea of these donations. Is that enough to call them all suspect? No. Are they so few as to render invalid the Republican claims? Again, no.

We're all entering a new age here with the use of this new fangled interwebtubethingie. You damn betcha there's gonna be abuses of it.

Hopefully, we'll figure things out to knock those down - in the future. It's to late now for this go 'round.

( 13 comments — Leave a comment )