Skip to main content

This is the first Presidential election after the "Citizens United" decision, which determined that money was speech. Yet, look at the money, and where it came from, during this campaign!

 Democratic Outside Spending:  $128,020,533
 Republican  Outside Spending:  $407,889,381
Republican outside, "Citizen United" type money, outspent the Democrats by a little more than 3 to 1.

 How could the Democrats make up such a sizable disadvantage from Super PACS? The answer is the only answer possible: from PEOPLE.

 Obama, Small Individual Contributions:  $214,314,215
 Romney, Small Individual Contributions: $ 70,851,796

 Obama, Large Individual Contributions:  $423,360,831
 Romney ,Large Individual Contributions: $316,212,124

 Obama, Total Individual Contributions:  $631,650,564
 Romney, Total Individual Contributions: $384,901,892

Obama, large and small, had more contributions from individual citizens. More people decided to send money to the Obama campaign than to the Romney campaign. By a lot. Small donations to Obama outnumbered small donations to Romney by, well, coincidentally, a little more than 3 to 1. Each small donor is a committed voter.

Obama even received more in donations from individuals who made large contributions. Since those are also capped, unlike PAC money, it stands to reason that Obama had more individuals contributing more large contributions as well as small contributions.  They, too, are committed voters.

In the end, committed money from committed donors, who become committed voters, narrowly yet decisively was able to overcome the hundreds of millions which came from a committed few.

 In the end, when you think about it, this sort of campaign, of committed voters, is not new.  In the end, we took the road MOST traveled on. And THAT made all the difference....

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And Democrats have street power (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David B

    Democrats have a better ground game because we care more deeply and are willing to work harder than the fat cat Republicans. We can't fight money just with money since progressives generally have a lot less money than fat-cat Republicans. But we can organize people power and use that to elect more and better Democrats and then to hold their feet to the fire. Keep fighting.

  •  I was just thinking about this, (0+ / 0-)

    so thanks for putting the numbers together.

    Go figure. Money didn't win, people did. Corporations didn't win, voters did.

    Maybe Rove's backers will agree that spending that much is just not worth it. Maybe they won't fight as hard when we try to overturn Citizens United.


    "I can't do it by myself. No president can. Remember: Change doesn't happen from the top. It happens because of you." B Obama, 2008

    by nzanne on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 08:02:01 AM PST

  •  I honestly don't know if we care more deeply... (0+ / 0-)

    ... than the "fat-cat Republicans." I DO know that there are more of us to be able to do what you suggest. ;-)

  •  Not to mention that money spent on political (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David B

    campaigning flows through lots of individual accounts to "stimulate" the economy. It's a much preferable alternative to having money socked away in trust funds and hedge funds and speculative investment accounts that simply fatten the gnomes of Wall Street.
    What we need is money movers, not job creators.  If the money's moving from hand to hand, we can all be job creators by spending.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 08:09:58 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site