I'm cross posting a piece here on small donors, which I worked with our president Bob Edgar to put together, looking at the trends in small donor giving this cycle for presidential and congressional candidates -- the two are very different -- and how that impacts our work to limit big money's role and engage more people in our political system.
Check it out below the fold.
The Small Donor Future
Even before it ends, this 2008 presidential campaign will transform our democracy - in fact, it already has. Hundreds of thousands of new voters have registered and cast ballots, Sen. Barack Obama has drawn huge crowds previously reserved for the likes of Bruce Springsteen, and a surge in small donations has given the campaigns more money from more individuals than ever before at this stage - with Obama already topping 1.5 million donors.
Putting regular voters in charge of our democracy - rather than wealthy and powerful interests - has long been a goal of reformers. Common Cause's focus over the past few years has been to enact public financing systems around the country, from Congress to states and cities, with the goal of empowering everyday citizens and the general public to provide the resources to a candidate's campaign for office.
Am I excited about this surge in small donors in the presidential primary? Incredibly so.
Am I still concerned that wealthy, powerful interests play too large a role in politics and in funding electoral campaigns?
Absolutely.
It's not a paradox. In part, it's a question of the presidential race versus everything else. Once you get outside the presidential campaign, you'll find that wealthy donors (giving upwards of $1000) have increased their hold on our campaign system. Let's look at that trend in a minute.
The presidential campaign has been funded, in almost equal parts, by small donors and large donors. For a quick breakdown - and see this study by the Campaign Finance Institute and this table for more details - Obama has received 45% from small donors ($200 and below) and 37% from large donors ($1000 and up), with the rest falling in the middle range of $201-$999. Sen. Hillary Clinton's finances break down to 30% from small donors and 55% from large donors. Sen. John McCain stands at 23% small and 63% large. The small donor trend has been partly mitigated by greater giving overall, including large donors, although the past few months have been dominated by small donors on the Democratic side.
What's the advantage of small donors? For the campaigns, they are relatively low-overhead - many come from online lists and from candidate events, which the campaigns would hold anyway - and the small donors tend to be an important source of activists. This is, of course, great for the democratic process in general: political giving often leads to greater civic and political participation and investment. And of course, small donor dollars don't give the impression that they're trying to buy undue influence with the campaign.
But races for Congress, unlike the Presidency, do not typically generate the same energy, the same buzz, and the same wall-to-wall media coverage. Not surprisingly, the trend in Congress is moving in the opposite direction:
House and Senate candidates have raised 80 percent more money in contributions of $1,000 or more in the years after BCRA [since 2002] than before while small contributions over the same time period have actually declined. As a percentage of total receipts, House and Senate candidates raised half again as much money in amounts of $1,000 or more after BCRA.
Large donors have increased their influence in congressional races, making the notion of a major "change in Washington"
hard to imagine without a significant shift to small donors and public funding as a source for candidates' campaign chests.
Indeed, the "Clean Elections" model being used in several states and cities does exactly that: candidates who raise enough small contributions (typically $5-10) to reach a threshold level of support, and who also agree to abide by spending limits and to stop raising additional private contributions, receive public funding to run their campaign. Those candidates are eligible for additional public matching funds if they're being
outspent by a privately-financed opponent.
The Fair Elections Now Act, introduced in the Senate by Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), and soon to be introduced in the House, would create a "Clean Elections" system for Congress. It's a critical change given the trend against small donors in congressional races.
At the end of this presidential election, we'll want to take a close look at the role small donors played in that race as well. We'll want to construct a public financing system for the presidential race that embraces and promotes a small donor strategy and limits the influence of wealthy campaign contributors. Capitalizing on the energy of this presidential race to further change the way we finance elections in this country - from top to bottom - would be a welcome democratic reform.
