Posted on 11/28/2008 8:39:17 PM PST by Michael Eden
It was heralded as a major part of the "new politics" surrounded Barack Obama. It was lauded as being the end of special interest politics dominated by special interest money. It was the primary reason Obama cited to justify his breaking of his promise to accept public financing.
And now the media finally tells us that the whole thing was a gigantic industrial-sized crock of crap.
Way to go, mainstream media. Thanks for doing such a great job reporting Obama's propaganda for the last two years, only to now get around to "correcting the record" after it no longer matters.
As USA Today reports:
Report says Obama's small-donor base claim is offI like the US News & World Report title better: "Barack Obama's Fundraising and the Small-Donor Myth."By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Despite attracting millions of new contributors to his campaign, President-elect Barack Obama received about the same percentage of his total political funds from small donors as President Bush did in 2004, according to a study released today by the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute.
The analysis undercuts Obama's claim that his supporters "changed the way campaigns are funded" by reducing the influence of special-interest givers.
"The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said Michael Malbin, the institute's executive director. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."
About $156 million, or a quarter of Obama's record-shattering campaign account, came from donors of $200 or less, according to the institute's analysis of federal election reports through Oct. 15. That compares with $205 million, or about a third, from those who gave between $2,300 and $4,600, the maximum allowed by law.
Forty-eight percent of Obama's total take came from donors of $1,000 or more, compared with 56% for John Kerry and 60% for both Bush and John McCain, the analysis found.
The small-donor percentage is lower than figures previously reported in news stories because the institute's analysis accounted for people who gave several small donations over the course of the election that added up to a larger sum, Malbin said.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in an e-mail that the campaign had more than 3.95 million donors, and "91% of our contributions were in amounts of $100 or less. … There's no doubt that small-dollar contributors played a critical and unprecedented role" in Obama's victory.
The study said Obama brought in a total $638 million, the most ever raised in a political campaign, compared with $206 million by McCain, who accepted $84.1 million in taxpayer financing for the general election. Obama reported 580,000 donors who gave more than $200.
Donors giving $200 or less need not be disclosed, but the difference between the number of donors provided by the Obama campaign and the number reported in federal election records shows there were about 3.4 million of them.
McCain reported 170,000 donors of $200 or more.
Obama opted out of public financing, raising private money through November and significantly outspending McCain in battleground states.
When Obama announced in June that he would forgo public financing, he told supporters in a video message that "instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special-interest PACs, you've fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. … You've already changed the way campaigns are funded, because you know that's the only way we can truly change how Washington works."
Meredith McGehee, a campaign-finance reform advocate at the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, said Obama cannot claim "this election somehow created an alternative system for public finance. … The data doesn't show that."
Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees or registered federal lobbyists, but many of his top fundraisers have keen economic interests in federal policies.
Contributing: Fredreka Schouten
This is why I am so routinely furious at the media. It is simply blatant. They could have done the story themselves when Barack Obama was so pompously and self-righteously breaking his word because his fundraising actually resulted in MORE openness and LESS big money (in other words, when he lied) over his reasons not to keep his promise and accept public financing.
But it simply wasn't in their ideology to report the truth about Obama's all-time record fund raising. It was a GOOD thing that he lied; it was a GOOD thing that as a result of his oath-breaking, he was able to raise more than three times as much money as John McCain.
In breaking his word, Obama demonized his opponent who was keeping his. But the media bought his reasoning hook line and sinker without bothering to see if his money were really coming from all those poor huddling masses who had previously been shut out of campaign contributions because of all those fat cats. And now we find out it was a lie, and that Obama had as many fat cats as anyone else (actually FAR, FAR, MORE, given that he raised $640 MILLION dollars).
But now, after the election, the mainstream media will prove how "objective" it is by finally reporting on news that should have been reported six months ago.
Given that Obama in all likelihood won this election due to his 3-1 fund raising advantage, it would have been only FAIR to investigate his fund raising. The McCain campaign vigorously attempted to prevent fraud, while Obama cared only about maximizing his contributions by any means available. The result was ALL SORTS of documented fraud that proved Obama's fundraising was a disgrace to fairness, or public access, or accountability, or anything else.
This is the same type of thing that we got from the media all along. How Obama Got Elected.com was one of many daggers in any pretense of media objectivity, demonstrating that the media kept voters ignorant of negative information about Obama-Biden, but just relentlessly pounded home every negative bit of information (whether true or not) about McCain-Palin.
The media has been so blatantly biased throughout its election coverage that it is completely accurate to say that we are now in a propaganda state. There is no possible way that Republicans can win in this media climate: whether you look at the Media Research Center, or at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (or again at their brand new study), or at the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is widespread agreement with one longtime ABC journalist that the media is dangerously biased. Pew Research discovered that Americans believe by a 70% to 9% margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain. The media now represents a fifth column of government - a propaganda wing - that attacks conservatives and celebrates and defends Democrats and their ideology.
Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded democracy, because no free society can survive such a climate of propaganda.
When the brown stuff hits the fan, the MSM will be hanging high too.
I don’t believe that. They got away with it, and they will do so again.
The media sometimes gets too much credit for being biased in favor of liberals.
In the case of Obama, they simply covered Obama more ‘cause he sold more papers and gathered more eyeballs to the tube. I mean, did you see anyone selling McCain pins and tee shirts on street corners? The press simply saw a way to cash in on the frenzy, and they did.
In the coming years, if the press can make more money from bashing Obama, they’ll do that too.
I posted some of the many studies that claim outright BIAS. It’s not just coverage, it’s the intent of the coverage. It’s the desire to cover one side in a positive light and another side in a negative one. It’s the refusal to investigate certain stories (like this one) that should have been investigated, but weren’t.
“Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded democracy,.....”
America founded Democracy!?
McCain was/is a moron. Why should have limited his fundraising to less than half of his opponent? That alone would have made a difference.
“...if the press can make more money from bashing Obama, they’ll do that too...”
That’s an inevitability, IMO.
The media create controversy in an attempt to sell ads. They created Obama; they’ll rip him apart. He’s nothing more than media bait. He’ll get his turn for them to chew apart.
This jackass has only won an election...he becomes president-elect after the electoral college certifies...
I believe “small donor” was in reference to their male genitalia.
I’ll admit I was silly for stating that America invented Democracy if you admit you were silly for in any way calling into question the fact that America’s role in the “Democratic experiment” is unrivaled.
The Greeks invented a form of democracy. But it wasn’t a form capable of sustaining itself. Ours is, or at least it WAS, until media propaganda turned us into a nation of disinformed idiots.
sure, you can go to a college town and have an old, decrepit rock star and bring in a bunch of college kids and other youts....
but to make 2-3 whistle stops a day, with people lining up in the rain at times, just to see and hear one petite,brown haired woman......well....it was unprecedented....
I maintain if Sarah Palin had been on the ticket from the middle of June....she would have brought in as much money as the zero......
that is not saying that I will support her next round.....possibly maybe even probably....
but the last campaign SHE WAS THE STAR!
I thought it was common knowledge that corporate heads donate to both parties and subsequently pull the effective constituent strings.
Mary Matalin made a statement on Fox the other night that was pretty amazing. According to her the RNC says her fundraising appeals were responsible for generating $310 million while she was on the ticket. Don't know if I can believe that or not, but that's what she said.
I do know she had 13 specific fuindraising events during the campaign which raised $18 million.
“...if you admit you were silly for in any way calling into question the fact that America’s role in the “Democratic experiment” is unrivaled.”
I was just going to go on with my life actually, but now that you are attempting to put words in my mouth, I’m becoming a tad peeved.
My choice is to leave this discussion alone.
No, America didn’t found democracy; the Greeks did.
Sorry to make you peeved, but I was a bit peeved myself for what I saw as a rather trivial distinction that you were trying to make.
America clearly - yes, “founded” is an accurate description - a unique form of stable democracy, and I found your initial comment every bit as annoying as you found my response to it.
Frankly, I don’t particularly care if the bias is “intentional” or not.
The fact that studies have routinely demonstrated that upwards of 90% of “journalists” are liberal, and that they have a demonstrated liberal worldview on EVERY social issue across the board; that they have an ideology that liberalism is right and conservative thought is bizarre if not outright dangerous, surely tends to color their presentation whether they “intend” to let it or not.
It is like the New York Times giving the Media Matters ad attacking General Petraeus (General Betray Us?) an incredibly favorable rate. They NEVER would have done that for a conservative organization advertising for a conservative issue.
It was like Peter Jennings, during his coverage of important Congressional hearings/votes. Again and again he used to identify as “the conservative Senator from __” or “the ultra-right Senator from __,” etc. Republican politicians, without ever ONCE saying, “the far left liberal from __.” The view that conservatives are “out of the mainstream of thought” or some other equally insulting perspective just dominates the press presentation.
I came across a site on Walter Cronkite that provides some of his incredibly leftist thinking:
http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/cronkite/welcome.asp
And he was for YEARS represented as the paradigm of his field!!! This guy was such a religious bigot that he said in an interview with TV Guide, “I don’t know who is worse - Osama bin Laden and the Taliban or Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.”
You don’t think that guys like PBS’ Bill Moyers or MSNBC’s anchor Keith Olbermann or Dan Rather (who was famously described as a “transparent liberal” by Any Rooney BEFORE he paraded the forged National Guard documents just before the 2004 election in an effort to torpedo Bush) are blatantly biased liberals who sat at the very top of their fields?
I was very impacted by my reading of Bernie Goldberg’s book “Bias.” I transcribed one portion that struck me as hitting the head on the nail.
http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/media-frenzy-over-abc-democratic-debate-reveals-leftist-bias/
Maybe people should click on the links of some of the studies I cite. Realizing that they are only a few of a massive array of documenting evidence.
So I see your, “I work in the press and I just don’t see the bias” and think of the fish who isn’t aware of the water. It is the environment that the press lives and breathes.
“....and I found your initial comment every bit as annoying as you found my response to it.”
Interesting. I annoyed you by questioning the statement at the end of your article.
I simply asked the question “America founded Democracy!?”
Your response, your reaction, your attitude caused me to withdraw from further discussion, as you seemed overly defensive of the matter, and you attempted to put words in my mouth so-to-speak in your initial response. Now here you are once again “in my face” for asking a simple question. I truly thought the matter had been dropped.
It’s quite a Leftist trait to attack anyone whom questions what they say. I would believe any good Conservative would not wish to leave such impression.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.