Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Are Democrats the party of the rich?

Media Focused on Big Bush Donors, Paying Little Attention to Obama’s Fat Cats
July 14, 2011 by Aubrey Vaughan

It’s no secret that most campaigns are heavily funded by big checks from lobbyists, PACs, and rich donors, but President Obama’s campaign team is turning away from that assertion, instead showcasing the claim that it is 98-percent-funded by grassroots support. Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, said “we did this from the bottom up,” pushing the idea that the $86 million fundraising figure released on Wednesday was fueled almost entirely by grassroots organizers.

While 98 percent of the checks may have come from grassroots donors, it doesn’t mean that 98 percent of the money did. Many media outlets are taking the bait and are ignoring the two percent of donors whose contributions may turn out to be a far greater portion of Obama’s campaign funds than Messina is making them out to be.

For comparison, eight years ago when then-President George W. Bush was ramping up for his re-election campaign, the media magnified a small fraction of extremely wealthy donors to be the image of his campaign.

Obama’s campaign won’t release the details of the remaining two percent of donors until tomorrow, when the Federal Election Commission has set its filing deadline. This allows for three full days of coverage of his 98 percent grassroots support, and the weekend to bury any stories about the rich donors who are fueling Obama’s campaign.

While Obama’s campaign fundraising data won’t be available until tomorrow, the Democratic National Committee, which in effect acts as a secondary campaign team for Obama, files monthly reports on their donations. Tim Carney analyzed the DNC’s monthly reports from this year, and found that Obama’s campaign isn’t as grassroots as Messina is making it out to be:

Of the $31.1 million the DNC has raised in contributions this year, almost two-thirds — $19.3 million — has come from individuals giving $10,000 or more, according to my analysis of FEC data. So, judging by all available data, rich people cutting big checks are providing an overwhelming majority of Obama’s re-election money.
Obama’s reliance on rich donors cutting five-figure checks isn’t unusual or surprising, but it does clash with the image his campaign puts forward. Messina’s web videos, like most of Obama’s fundraising emails, push the myth that the campaign is mostly funded by ordinary people cutting $50 checks. It may be true that 98 percent of donations to the Obama campaign were $250 or less, but that’s not a very telling statistic.

read full article here

bias, campaign, Democrats, funding, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, politics, propaganda, relativism, wealthy

Advertisements

Filed under: bias, campaign, Democrats, funding, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, politics, propaganda, relativism, wealthy

One Response

  1. […] Are Democrats the party of the rich? […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: