Politico featured an interesting story today noting comments from White House ethics lawyer Norm Eisen at Reformapalooza — better known as the “Money in Politics 2009: New Horizons for Reform” conference hosted by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Eisen, a law school classmate of Obama who volunteered for his presidential campaign, said “having witnessed the small donor revolution taking place firsthand over the past two years, I will point out that … like that other great revolution that resulted in our presence here today — the American Revolution — a revolution can take a long time to institutionalize and to bear fruit.”
A reality check is in order. As the story also notes, there was not a monumental revolution of small donors in the 2008 presidential race. Small donors to Obama’s campaign represented 26 percent of Obama’s $750 million haul — one percent more than small donors to the 2004 campaign of President George W. Bush. There’s also no evidence congressional campaigns, lacking the celebrity of Obama, could depend on small donors to remain viable.
“The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama’s finances,” said Campaign Finance Institute executive director Michael Malbin, after his organization released a study of donors in 2008. “The reality of Obama’s fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth.”
Yet, campaign finance “reformers,” want to implement a public financing system for congressional elections based on this small donor “revolution.” Congressional sponsors, backed by pro-regulation groups, want to pressure congressional candidates to limit donors to $100, thereby leveraging taxpayer financing for their campaigns. Such a system would be heavily skewed in favor of incumbents, who enjoy easy access to media, high name recognition and perks like franked mail.
It’s enough to make political freedom fighters saddle up and race through New England towns proclaiming, “The regulators are coming!”
