Becoming President isn't incentive enough?

Published on July 17, 2007
by Michael Schrimpf

File Under: Faulty Assumptions, Press

In his column "Small money vs. big money" E. J. Dionne says, "Reformers need to be creative on the supply side of political money. There still are not enough small donors to counter the influence of the big ones. But that day could come -- and it should."

His solution is to "give candidates strong new incentives to raise small money rather than big money" by socializing our federal campaign finance system by offering matching funds, at a 5 to 1 ratio, on all private contributions up to $100.

Candidates, though, do not need any more incentives to reach out to small donors.  To understand why, all we need to do is look at the fundraising success of Barack Obama.

Just this morning, the New York Times ran an in depth article highlighting the importance of small donors to the Obama campaign.  According to the Times, Obama "has built a unique roster of small donors who may give again or volunteer as the race continues, and which enables them to portray his campaign as powered by a vast army of regular people across the country."

Additionally, Obama's donor roster exceeds the national mailing list of both Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.  And, Obama's success courting small donors has "settled any question of whether Mr. Obama of Illinois, after only two years in the Senate, could hold his own in a field of candidates with more national experience and exposure."

So it appears, that there are already plenty of incentives to reach out to small donors.  Undoubtedly, all the other campaigns are already working hard to match Obama's efforts - they don't need a government subsidy to make it worth their while.