Online Outlays Give Small Donors Louder Voice in Campaigns
Small donations to candidates in the last presidential race surged mainly due to the Internet, and especially among Democrats, said George Washington U.’s Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet (IPDI). The study, unveiled as IPDI was to hold its annual conference, analyzed 2004’s place in campaign funding history and chronicle the Internet’s a vehicle for campaigns to inform, organize and raise money.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The 2004 election saw donors more than triple over 2000, IPDI said. Among those were an unprecedented number of small and online donors. The report dispels the notion that “small donors are angrier and more partisan than big donors,” IPDI Research Dir. Joe Graf said: “Small donors in the 2004 presidential election were good for American democracy.” Besides, the Web introduced a new population to political giving, IPDI Dir. Carol Darr told reporters Mon.
Nearly 1/2 of online donors who gave $100 or less, and more than 1/3 of those who gave $500 or more, said they did so without being asked, IPDI said. That’s compared with only about 1/4 of offline donors, officials said. The Internet helped level the playing field between large and small donors, the report said. Both sets grew in 2004, but the middle class participated more noticeably than previously. Being online made it easier for small donors to connect with others, find information and be politically active, IPDI said. Online donors, in turn, were more likely than offline donors to ask others for money and to support their candidate, the study found. The Web’s impact on young donors was notable. More than 80% of young donors contributed over the Internet, marking online giving as central to future fundraising, IPDI said.
Other key findings: (1) The donor pool is more fluid year to year than thought, meaning more unpredictability, and potential opportunity, for future campaigns. (2) Social events’ influence in campaign 2004 was underestimated, given that 1/4 of all donors reported attending a house party and 1/4 of donors who attended a function through Meetup.com said it helped motivate their first campaign donation. (3) Democrats were more likely to give online than Republicans. About 64% of large donors who were Democrats and 54% of small donor Democrats made at least one donation online, he said.
The findings leave Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) Exec. Dir. Michael Malbin “cautiously upbeat,” he said: “Donors are still a small part of the population, but the growth was impressive. So was the surprising fluidity among them, which means there are even more potential donors out there. These could be important building blocks for the future.” IPDI worked with CFI on the report.
Online fundraising costs little compared with traditional vehicles, said PoliticsOnline Pres. Phil Noble. It costs about 7 cents to raise $1 online, he said. In 2000, Democratic contender Bill Bradley raised $1 million and Republican hopeful Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) raised $6 million, Noble said. A few years later, Democrat Howard Dean raised $17 million and Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) $82 million. Next time around, Noble predicted Web fundraising may account for $1-$2 billion.
The 2004 Presidential race marked the first national election with wide use of e-mail to marshal supporters and solicit money, IPDI said. The institute found more than 900 e-mail messages sent from the 2 major campaigns and national parties the last 6 months of the race. About 80% of donors said they got political e-mail during the campaign, IPDI said. Forwarding e-mails also took off in 2004 as online donors were far likelier to engage in the practice, the report said. Among Democrats and Republicans who received political e-mails, 70% of online donors said they sent some on to friends and associates.
Internet politicking’s rapid escalation can’t be overlooked, Noble said. The Web “went from ‘did not exist’ to the dominant news medium in America,” he said: “This ain’t your daddy’s Oldsmobile.” Since 2004, Web-based offerings, like broadband video, peer-to-peer networks, blogs and podcasts, have drawn new audiences. JibJab’s satirical cartoons were one success story. Aug.-Sept. 2004, triple the number of people watched JibJab’s work than visited websites and saw online communications from the Bush and Kerry camps, Noble said. “The dominant political communication of 2004 was developed by 2 brothers in their basement in California. That’s the kind of revolutionary change that’s happening here,” he said.
But the Internet’s role also is going to be “dirty” and “nasty” in some cases, Noble said. “Ultimately, what the Internet is about is putting the technology in the hands of many to be able to communicate with many,” he said. More discussion about the Internet’s influence on politics is due today (Tues.) and Wed., at IPDI’s annual conference -- www.ipdi.org/politicsonline.