Pearl River      On my side of the line, all of us grouse about how big donors have infiltrated and bought the US political system almost lock, stock, and barrel since Citizens United.  Many of us had hopes for small donors in 2008, when Obama first ran and did so well tapping into this vast part of the electorate, before going large in 2012.  Trump in 2016 also mastered small donors, which seemed a contradiction for a billionaire, putting a damper on our hopes.

All of which had me jump at the chance to talk to University of Massachusetts at Amherst Professor Raymond La Raja and Brandies University Professor Zachary Albert about all the work they have done in looking at the impact of small donors, now reflected in their boom, Small Donors in US Politics:  Myth and Reality.  You can probably already guess the upshot:  small donors are not our hope for an answer to the dilemma of money in politics.

Being political scientists, their questions were about the same as most of ours would have been.  The difference is that they could really look at the data, somewhat from their own surveys, but mainly from the two main sources for handling political contributions, ActBlue and WinRed, the first for the Democrats and the latter for the Republicans.  Dark money from the rich through various outlets is by definition not disclosed, but the two payment services are obligated to reveal their users which provided Albert and La Raja with a huge data source for small donors, usually defined as less than $250.

So, who are they?  The professors found that they had pretty much the same characteristics as the rich donors.  They were well-educated, disproportionately white, older, and deeply ideological, just with smaller bank accounts.  They also were not local people interested in local races.  They congealed in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, much like the rich donors.  Many of the donors were investing in what the professors called “surrogate representation.”  They were making donations based on national, rather than local issues, and in races and candidates that had gotten their attention, rather than in hometown races.  Like flies to garbage, the more controversial, publicized, and even radical the candidate, the more likely small donors would swarm.   This phenomenon was a central reason why some of the policy reforms meant to increase small donors in local races, like a voucher system in Seattle, have had modest impact, although the professors also argue it is why to increase local donors in local and state races would require much larger incentives and matches in order to work.

Interestingly, what would work in their view was organizing and more involvement in moving donors and participation by organizations.  I realize that you might think that I’m putting words in their mouths, but I swear this is not only what they wrote in their book, but also the drum they beat on the radio.   When unions or community-based organizations, yes, like ACORN, were involved in local races, GOTV, and general voter mobilization, it could move the needle more broadly on small donors in their view.

There’s hope then for small donors making a difference, but there’s a gauntlet to run to get there.  We would have to see more resources and work in organizing and organizational building, and not white-gloved c3s, but membership and c4 organizations willing and able to take the heat and deliver the goods.  If we could make that happen, then we might be able to broaden the small donor base past being mini-me to the rich, and being able to make a difference.  It’s a tall order, but that’s the job.