Small donors give Obama reason to be optimistic

By Richard K. Barry

While it is always more exciting to talk about big picture things like national polls, and the state of the economy, when describing Obama's chances at reelection, it's also important to keep some focus on the boring stuff, i.e., campaign organization. 

One of the things that those in the know like to talk about is paid staff and volunteers in key primary/caucus states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. People like Herman Cain can generate a lot of heat, but unless that heat is accompanied by what I would call campaign infrastructure, it's hard to win. 

And then, once the primaries are over, and the nominees have been identified, it's all about sustaining campaigns in key battleground states with the full complement of resources to win - not to mention hanging on to the states you're supposed to win. 

One of the key pieces of campaign infrastructure is boots on the ground, the people who do the hard work. And one good indicator that large numbers of volunteers or poorly paid staffers might be making themselves ready to put in the hours on a campaign is their willingness to put cash on the barrelhead - their willingness to make campaign contributions. 

Accordingly, the following, in a Washington Post article that ran a couple days ago, brought a smile to my face:

Even with low approval ratings and an uncertain path to reelection, President Obama is exceeding expectations in one area: His campaign is doing far better at attracting grass roots financial support this year than the Republican rivals or his own historic effort in 2008, according to new contribution data.

The sheer scale of small donations, totalling $56 million for Obama and his party, has surprised many Democratic strategists and fundraisers, who feared that a sour economy would make it difficult for Obama to raise money from disenchanted and cash-strapped voters.

A Washington Post analysis shows that nearly half of his campaign contributions, and a quarter of the money he has raised for the Democratic Party, has come from donors giving less than $200. That's much higher than it was in 2008 and far beyond what the best-funded Republicans have managed.

Sure, it's early days in a sense. But this has to be seen as good news by Obama and his team. Donors are simply more committed to their candidates than those who have not made a financial contribution. And it's interesting that the so-called right-wing populism of the Tea Party movement has not been translating into as many small donations for the GOP. Could that be because so much of this "movement" was actually bought and paid for by the likes of the Koch brothers and others -- that there were not that many actual live bodies engaged? Perhaps. It will be interesting to see how many on the right show up to do the door-knocking and the phone work. 

The downside is that Obama has not been as successful with larger donors and, if that doesn't change, it could be a problem. 

For now, I'll take the good news that a significant army of small donor/campaign activists is gearing up to take the fight to the right-wing. 

I'm still feeling good about 2012. 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Pity the poor Koch Brothers, just a couple of regular guys trying to do the right thing

By Richard K. Barry

Big joke. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) says that it inadvertently sent a letter to the Koch Brothers asking for a political contribution. Given the Koch Brothers' long history of financing fake "grassroots movements" and throwing money at every conceivable roadblock to creating a fairer society for more Americans, it does, at first blush, appear to be an obvious mistake.

Having said that, like most corporations in America, the Koch Brothers have probably, over time, financed both Democrats and Republicans if the candidate in question happened to be either on side with a particular corporate interest or deemed "swayable."

It seems too obvious to say, but, because corporations have so much cash to distribute, they throw their money in all directions on the chance that it might somehow have an impact consistent with whatever public policy goal they find useful.

That the Koch Brothers would have ended up on a list of those who had previously donated to individual Democratic candidates, and therefore be a potential target for a DSCC fundraising pitch, seems not only possible, but likely. It's the nature of list management in the world of high volume political fundraising. Lists are the real currency of politics: donors, supporters, opinions leaders, volunteers, sign locations, etc.

In fact, Politico reports that the Kochs did donate almost $200,000 to Democratic organizations in 2010 and $30,000 to the DSCC in the same cycle.

So, the "how dare you" response by the Koch Brothers seems a little strained to me, but predictable.

Clearly, though, if the DSCC had been paying more attention they would have pulled the letter, knowing that it would be a minor public relations bonanza for those on the right with too little else to do with their time. In that sense, it was a mistake.

Blah, blah, blah.

More interesting for me, though, was the final paragraph in the letter sent by a Koch Companies public affairs hack to the DSCC complaining about the request for financial support. It read:

It is troubling that private citizens taking part in the discourse have become the targets of White House and DSCC fundraising missives, and we would certainly encourage you to rethink that approach.

Give me a break. Holding aside that whole bizarre thing about corporate personhood, an entity as large, influential and powerful as the Koch Companies is a behemoth able to act in the public sphere in a way so dramatically different from what a "private citizen" could do as to make the Koch claim ridiculous.

In 2008, Forbes called Koch the 2nd largest privately held company in the United States, stating that it had an annual revenue at that time of $98 billion. Say it to yourself slowly, "an annual revenue of $98 billion."

I guess Koch's political activities would sort of be just like the guy down the street with a photocopier and a pet political issue to flog, except that it would be totally different from that.

It seems that we are supposed to feel sorry for the Koch Brothers because some would want to shine a light on their political activities to get a firmer grasp on how they spend some of that money to makes friends and influence people.

Oh, cut the crap.

Koch Industries is a monster corporation that has and will continue to grease whatever palms it thinks might be useful on whichever side of the aisle.

Nice try at indignation. Not buying.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)