Grassroots fundraising
Per Darren's request, I'm more than happy to share a few brief thoughts on Sen. Barack Obama's impressive fundraising in the first quarter.
Quite simply, it's incredibly more impressive than the other candidates because it's a close second to Sen. Hillary Clinton's $26 million and that large sum comes from an astounding number of individual donors (more than 100,000 reported donors, which is unheard of in primary politics). Clinton relied on collecting large donations.
Clinton’s campaign often solicited the $4,600 donations, while Obama’s campaign focused on recruiting small dollar donors. In the coming months, he can return to those donors and ask those who haven’t maxed out to give more.
Compound this by the fact that Obama has said he doesn't desire to take contributions from lobbyists or political action committees and the fact that he raised $25 million is jaw-dropping ... and a testament to the movement he's building.
I've given him $25 three different times, and what's impressed me is that two of those gifts were unsolicited. The one that was solicited resulted in the caller telling me that Obama wanted to focus more on the number of individuals who had the ability to give, and not how much they would give. He said - in a first in political fundraising for me at least - that if I could give just $10 that would be great. Now, I've sifted through a number of calls from different candidates and political action committees, and they typically ask for $100 right off the bat, and - if I'm interested in giving - I have to talk them down to $25.
(I have a funny memory of The Wife getting in an argument with a representative from the DCCC in which she was repeatedly refusing to give money for this particular cycle, and the caller kept reading through the script about how 'Republicans want to do this and this and this ...' She finally said 'listen, you don't to sell me on any of that, but I still ain't sending you another check.')
Anyway, I like Obama's approach to fundraising. I'm quite sure that, as the campaign heats up, he'll be forced to solicit those larger donations. However, it's refreshing to see such a concerted effort for small giving as a means of vocal support rather than running to the biggest donors or PACs.
Quite simply, it's incredibly more impressive than the other candidates because it's a close second to Sen. Hillary Clinton's $26 million and that large sum comes from an astounding number of individual donors (more than 100,000 reported donors, which is unheard of in primary politics). Clinton relied on collecting large donations.
Clinton’s campaign often solicited the $4,600 donations, while Obama’s campaign focused on recruiting small dollar donors. In the coming months, he can return to those donors and ask those who haven’t maxed out to give more.
Compound this by the fact that Obama has said he doesn't desire to take contributions from lobbyists or political action committees and the fact that he raised $25 million is jaw-dropping ... and a testament to the movement he's building.
I've given him $25 three different times, and what's impressed me is that two of those gifts were unsolicited. The one that was solicited resulted in the caller telling me that Obama wanted to focus more on the number of individuals who had the ability to give, and not how much they would give. He said - in a first in political fundraising for me at least - that if I could give just $10 that would be great. Now, I've sifted through a number of calls from different candidates and political action committees, and they typically ask for $100 right off the bat, and - if I'm interested in giving - I have to talk them down to $25.
(I have a funny memory of The Wife getting in an argument with a representative from the DCCC in which she was repeatedly refusing to give money for this particular cycle, and the caller kept reading through the script about how 'Republicans want to do this and this and this ...' She finally said 'listen, you don't to sell me on any of that, but I still ain't sending you another check.')
Anyway, I like Obama's approach to fundraising. I'm quite sure that, as the campaign heats up, he'll be forced to solicit those larger donations. However, it's refreshing to see such a concerted effort for small giving as a means of vocal support rather than running to the biggest donors or PACs.
posted by Jmac at 11:31 PM
1 Comments:
As I said in my comment yesterday, I believe the gross number of donors to be the most impressive part of this disclosure.
Your point about the fundraising approach contributing to this phenomenon had not really occurred to me. My interpretation of the number of donors was that Obama's appeal as new and exciting had motivated many people -- who otherwise would not give -- to do so. Now that I think about it, though, your point about the strategy makes great sense.
Along with the practical point you make that Obama can go back to small donors again and again, I wonder how much the strategy was designed to create the very impression I had. With a focus on small donations from more people, even if the total money raised had not been as substantial as it is, the volume of donors gets journalists writing articles about Obama's "mass, widespread" appeal, or how he's "popular phenomenon."
For the record, I have not contributed to any presidential candidate this cycle. I think I would give to any of the Democratic big three under the right circumstances. So far, I've held off, because I don't feel firmly in one camp over the others.
Darren
Post a Comment
<< Home