Just like when Hillary's big donors tried to extort the DNC and Pelosi by waving around their checkbooks, and then grassroots Obama donors responded with a flood of money to the DNC to show their support for the Party. You are right, Obama has brought people back into politics, and he didn't need to pass any laws to do it. That isn't to say that campaign finance reform won't need to be addressed in the future, but it is a testament to the amazing things Obama has been doing for politics, and this country in general.

i thought john mccain was completely missing the point earlier in this campaign (god knows exactly when, it feels like forever ago) when he said obama was going back on his pledge for "public financing".

When one million + people donate to your campaign, isn't that by definition "public financing"?

When you think of the purpose or the intent of "big" donors, they give because they want to buy influence.

It's very hard to buy influence for 96 dollars, especially when a million other people have donated the same amount.

Obama's campaign will be remembered as the one that got the little guy back into politics. granted, dean tried it and it didn't work. But Obama perfected the system and i have a feeling all future campaign will be modeled after his.

Thought so for a month or so now. Ever since the February results.

Clearly this is publically funded electioneering.

In fact, this is why Obama is going to win the Presidential election.

The post and comments are absolutely true.

The speed with which the grass roots made up for the threat to Pelosi from the Hillary supporters was stunning to me (I ponied up $25, the best I could do).

This is what the SD's cannot ignore.

The March numbers were great, considering the news month he had. And the important point to me is, Obama's difficulties did not translate into support for Hillary. Her usual pity ploy at the end of the month evidently didn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference: they've been shamed into releasing her numbers today, $20M. And in the stories I read, they are immediately asking how much of that money is actually available for the primary. A question they didn't think to ask about her February numbers, until the FEC report showed that she only raised 1/3 of that money for the primary.

So you put it all together and Obama cannot be dismissed by the party no matter what Hillary says. She is on a path to doing damage to the Democratic chances in November if she continues down this path.

The one thing party elders understand is fundraising. They can't ignore it any longer.

I think I already said this. :-)

"Does that say anything about a campaign that has been touted for its small donors and its likeness to being public funded, (even though it is not)?"

Well, are you a millinaire or a "regular" citizen?

1.6 million donors, I think that is about as close to "public financing" as it can get, without depending on our tax money for the same purpose.

Cnsider this... what if the maximum donation was dropped to $500, rather than $5000? That would force EVERY candidate to depend on a populist response to their fundraising, rather than a special interest fundraising. That would make Obama's 1.5 Million (rounded down to make the math easier) worth about $750,000,000 to him, if they all maxed out.

And it would force every candidate to reach out beyond fat-cats and special interest pacs who expect something in return.

Then take the soft money out of it, and require that ANY ad supporting a paricular candidate or party be included in that limitation, don't make it illegal but make it part of the total limit, and then each of those shadow groups would have to add more names to their membership to reach the $500 apiece mark, if they want to be a player.

That would shove their "freedom of speech" dodge right up their other orifice, because they would not be constrained in their message, just in their approach to financing that message.

So, instead of 10 Mellon-Scaiffes contributing a million apiece in soft money to a PAC or a 527, those organizations would have to recruit new mwmbers at the tune of $500 apiece, just as if they were giving to a candidate.

This post dates back to 2/21/08, but it's still relevant: http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/02/obamas-netroots.html

Another added benefit to the change in the way campaigns will be financed (hopefully) from here on in: we get rid of spoilers like Nader. (And, depending on how you view the depth of Clinton's support from Operation Chaos, Clinton.) Seriously--he brings nothing to the party by way of platform and takes federal financing funds, if I recall correctly.

1.3 million donors = campaign finance reform

If Obama wins the nomination (as seems likely), and goes on to win the general (please, please, please), and does it largely funded by small donors, I predict that an effort will be made to institute a minimum legal campaign donation of, say, $500.

I'm mostly kidding, but I'm also cynical enough that I wouldn't be surprised. If there start to be "reports from anonymous DOJ officials" that "many, if not most small donations can be traced back to shadowy foreign organizations" ... well, you'll know that effort is starting."

Agreed. And it is exciting to realize it's finally really happening!

The implications are unlimited ...

I think the role of lobbyists deserves mentioning in the discussion. Fat cat donors, executives in this or that industry, tend to employ lobbyists to make sure that their money was well spent. Who will play that role for the hundreds of thousands of small donors? In other words, how do we the small guys, make sure that our voices are heard. big industry donors and lobbyists have the advantage of being a small, narrow-minded, issue-driven phalanx. They can write bills for lazy lawmakers, especially when they're in a pinch (cue today's proposed mega-tax-break for homebuilders - I wonder who came up with that one???). So in the end, how do we make sure we get something out of our monetary involvement? Just a thought.

I have contributed to the Obama campaign. I consider it money well spent. If he is our president, I don't need lobbyists to represent my interests. All Obama needs to do is effectivly carry out the goals he has set in his "Blueprint for America." This document is very detailed concrete, and

As someone who donates to Obama's campaign every month, I can tell you that McCain should worry. When we get to the general election, our donations will really start to kick in to fight the Republicans. Obama has built a historically strong grassroots operation across the country; we are organized and ready to do whatever it takes to win in November.

Absolutely right on. I've been thinking the same thing. However, campaign donation limits still play a role here, if the fat cats could give 100k or 1m instead of $2300 it might be a different story. But when Obama raises in one month what would have been considered a few election cycles ago as enough for a full campaign, it is clear the rules have changed and for the better. Howard Dean started the revolution here, but Obama has permenantly changed the GOP money advantage. (BTW, the fat cats figured this out a long time ago, a little more tax or program cuts on a whole lot of people means big money)

I've long thought that the public finance law ought to be amended to allow candidates to accept contributions limited to $100 total per individual donor as well as the the money that comes from public financing.

That way candidates who have a popular base don't have to worry so much about the smaller totals public financing allows. Yet it still falls into the category of public financing, as many have noted.

Bundling would also be disallowed so that the contributions would have to be individual, sent in by mail (one donor) or online.

I think the internet is a game changer to a certain extent: we keep our elected officials, those we volunteered for and contributed to - and the opponents as well - under the constant, watchful glare of the public. We can shame them into action, mostly by threatening to withdraw our monetary support in the next cycle. Think of the positive impact some DailyKos campaigns have had (most recently with FISA). In the same way, advocacy groups and unions are very useful, but only to a point.
So I don't doubt that Obama has the best intentions in the world - but when all is said and done, I'd really wished their was a way to ensure that mine was not a blank check. That type of policy relay still needs to be invented IMHO.