- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,349
- Reaction score
- 6,037
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The LA Times said:After all the promises that fundraising-as-usual was behind them and that charming the wealthy over canapes would take a backseat to chatting with regular human beings, Democratic presidential candidates spent a lot of time this summer in the Hamptons. Martha’s Vineyard, Brentwood, and the well-manicured estates of Silicon Valley, too.
Paying the bills without paying regular visits to the seaside homes and penthouse apartments of rainmakers turns out to be a lot harder than many candidates hoped.
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has twice funded robust presidential campaigns almost exclusively with small online contributions. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has largely succeeded, as well. The others, not so much.
“A lot of them had a big burst of online fundraising at the beginning and thought they were going to be able to keep it going,” said Joe Trippi, who managed the 2004 presidential campaign of Howard Dean, an early phenom at grass-roots fundraising. “They hired beyond their ability to sustain it. Several had to pull back.”
Yeah... I could've told you that this was going to happen.
Not even Bernie was immune to this fact back in 2016.
Which big donors did Bernie solicit?
Ron Paul managed to secure a lot of money via small donors.
Maybe the problem isn't us. Maybe the problem is them, and their message.
Just a thought.
Ron Paul managed to secure a lot of money via small donors.
Solicitation would be hard to actually prove. Because pack's being such a big thing now, and the fact that actual companies are forbidden by law to donating from candidates. It can make such things a hassle.
Though I do know that he got several large pack donations from the likes of Microsoft and Apple. Not to mention Bernie had his usual shtick of garnering donation through his debate performances.
Yes, the guy who went nowhere?
Never the less, he garnished a lot of small donors via grass roots effort.
Sanders repudiated and never accepted/encouraged PAC/Super PAC support.
Moreover cumulative individual donations from employees don't generally hint at notable and concerted corporate influence barring bundling efforts, sourcing from upper management, and maximum individual donations; if for example 5000 Microsoft employees donated $20 each, the hefty cumulative total of $100,000 doesn't really imply untoward influence; what that tells me rather, is that a bunch of people at Microsoft, people probably not at the upper echelons of management, like his ideas. If however that same amount were comprised of the individual election maximum of $2800, thus deriving from about 36 donors, that would be significantly more concerning, particularly if they did explicitly come from management.
Personally I was unable to find evidence that the donation composition derived from bundling, upper management or maximal donations; if you know of such, I would be interested in seeing it.
Sanders repudiated and never accepted/encouraged PAC/Super PAC support.
Moreover cumulative individual donations from employees don't generally hint at notable and concerted corporate influence barring bundling efforts, sourcing from upper management, and maximum individual donations; if for example 5000 Microsoft employees donated $20 each, the hefty cumulative total of $100,000 doesn't really imply untoward influence; what that tells me rather, is that a bunch of people at Microsoft, people probably not at the upper echelons of management, like his ideas. If however that same amount were comprised of the individual election maximum of $2800, thus deriving from about 36 donors, that would be significantly more concerning, particularly if they did explicitly come from management.
Personally I was unable to find evidence that the donation composition derived from bundling, upper management or maximal donations; if you know of such, I would be interested in seeing it.
"Small donors don’t cut it for many Democratic candidates"
They only need to "cut it" for ONE candidate, the one that raises the most money.
That can be from small donors, larger donors or some combination of the two but it is certainly possible to raise money without big corporate PAC donations.
Besides, in the end, what are we really arguing about? I say that utimately the goal we're arguing about is the eventual dismantling of the big donor system altogether, and since there is no way Republicans would ever go for that, it comes down to Democrats to try, and in order for them to try, they first have to WIN.
So I suggest revisiting the subject of campaign finance later on if the Democrats win convincingly in the POTUS and in both sides of Congress.
Then we will see if reforming campaign finance is really going to ever happen.
If it doesn't, cover my face with egg.
Yes, the guy who went nowhere?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?