Big Bucks for Barack

Since officially capturing the Democratic nomination in June, Barack Obama has scheduled fundraising stop after fundraising stop, in places like Los Angeles, New York, Washington, Chicago and Atlanta. So despite talk of a fundraising slowdown this month, his dramatic announcement of a $52 million haul in June ($30 million more than John McCain) shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

Yet despite the increasing time he's spent with big donors, Obama has retained his small donor base. The average donation to Obama in June was $68, according to Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. We don't yet know how much of the money came from $2,300 checks. There was some speculation earlier this month that Obama had tapped out his army of small donors; indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that Obama would raise only an "underwhelming" $30 million.

As a result of Obama's haul, Democrats have reached near parity with Republicans financially. The Obama campaign is hoping that their much-criticized decision to opt out of public financing for the general election will now be seen as a smart tactical move.

Still, the amount of money poured into campaigns these days is disturbingly high--and seems to get worse every campaign cycle. In 2004, George W. Bush enlisted 548 "bundlers" who raised over $100,000 for his re-election campaign. Already Obama has 552 bundlers and McCain has 564. Those numbers will only increase--and so will the strings attached.

Comments (8)

1. I think the vast majority of the $52 million is still from $100 or less donors.

   It is difficult to assert "strings" when your money is just a small part of the equation.

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/17/2008 @ 1:58pm

2. Unless you call box seats at the inaugural or Lincoln room sleep overs "strings".

   These kinds of perks are not the kind that influence "policy" decisions.

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/17/2008 @ 2:00pm

3. Oh, for God's sake, Maasch. Illiterate much? You called it right, it's a stupid question, but you're the only one who asked it, and somehow I doubt you'll follow your logic to its natural conclusion.

   Ari says "Those numbers will only increase--and so will the strings attached." In the headline, he says "But what are the strings attached?" Nowhere does he say what your eyes/brain/fingers disconnect seem to read, and yet here you are slamming him for saying something that you, in fact, said.

   Apologies, maybe? "I was wrong to fail to read, and I was wrong to be a dick for reasons which I fabricated out of whole cloth!"

   Posted by TouchMeNot at 07/17/2008 @ 3:57pm

4. TouchMeNot -

   Don't you get it? MAASCH doesn't read the posts. He just comes here to get a rise out of people and make a few lousy predictions.

   Posted by Hman23 at 07/17/2008 @ 4:31pm

5. <-----------last guy:

   Plays same oldhollow, nonsensical note over and over

   and over and over

   And indefatigably with the fake jazzy veneer

   The -hey!- exclamation points

   It's all a mundane, stuck, small town version of Limbaugh's daring, dumb, crazy, wow ties- double exclamations -hey!- -hey!-

   zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

   Posted by winyahn at 07/17/2008 @ 8:45pm

6. RE: Big Bucks ... Moral compass or moral compact? Well it's understandable if McCain takes Joe lieberman, an old friend. But if Obama needs Hagel, that's problem. So win at any cost? -----------

   Opposites attract: VP Hagel, Lieberman? By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 7/17/08 6:54 PM

   Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), both estranged from their own parties over their stance on the war in Iraq, are often mentioned as attractive candidates for the vice presidency for precisely that reason.

   That nervous laughter you hear is the sound of party activists responding to speculation that Barack Obama or John McCain might pick a vice presidential candidate from the opposing party.

   Posted by HelenDAO at 07/17/2008 @ 9:55pm

7. If Obama's swooning, humorless supporters continue to force critics to whisper, to shut up or to explain their artistic renderings, our precious gift and right of free expression will diminish if Obama is elected in November.

   Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/17/2008 @ 10:25pm

   Well if that isn't the dumbest piece of sensationalism and complete over the top exaggeration I haver ever seen. If Obama is elected we will have no more freedom of speech or expression! Then we will all be locked in concentration camps! God you must be desperate if THIS is what you are quoting.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/18/2008 @ 12:14pm

8. Also Happy it's amazing to me that I saw you complaining about sensationalist reporting and shoddy journalism on another thread because someone made the leap from saying that because McCain doesn't want to fund contraception to him not agreeing with contraception. Now you give us this gem here that makes the leap that because Obama doesn't want to be called a terrorist that he is going to take away our free speech or our freedom of expression. But shoddy journalism must be ok as long as the shoddiness expresses the opinion of the right.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/18/2008 @ 1:02pm