Blogs as fundraising sources
Just happened to notice this in the sidebar at the very popular Eschaton blog.
It's a list of candidates and the donations received by each through this one blog alone through the end of June.
Eschaton Approved Candidates
Fundraising totals as of 6/27:
Lois Murphy $15422
Joe Sestak $3622
Ned Lamont $29579
Patrick Murphy $9903
Louise Slaughter $6172
Nick Lampson $1488
Chris Carney $697
Jon Tester $456
I'm not aware of how long Atrios has been calling for donations to these candidates. For instance, he may have added some to the list only recently.
A couple grumpy commenters here have made it a point to sneer at and dismiss online fundraising in general, and the use of blogs to generate support specifically.
Though admittedly, Eschaton is one of the most popular progressive blogs, is national in scope, and has a readership which dwarfs most blogs, (it probably gets more visits per day than this blog gets in almost a year) $67,339.00 raised from readers of a single blog over a few months isn't anything to sneeze at.
I'm not sure how representitive this is or what it suggests, but it's one example which shows that attracting financial support online isn't a myth.
Even adjusting downward in scale, it would suggest that campaigns attracting and enlisting the support of bloggers and their readers could be worthwhile.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 7/12/2006
5 comments
5 Comments:
Dream on, Bozo.
Dream on, Bozo.
It's been my experience that there's definitely interest. Several comments on the issue are on the Hare/Internet thread as well.
And it seems you're definitely interested.... in trying to argue that campaigns should ignore online cash.
That seems like a brilliant idea.
The people who donate money read stuff. One of the most accessible, timely and detailed sources is the Internet.
Not only do blogs raise money directly, but the buzz--or lack thereof--affects donations from traditional sources.
Dook,
Talk about changing the issue.
Are you suggesting that fundraising is fruitless unless the candidate wins?
In other words, why bother?
In attempting to suggest something based on the number of candidates supported by one particular blog won, you're distorting the issue.
The indisputable fact is that each of these candidates would have much less money to campaign with were it not for the blogs, which by extention means that they would have theoretically had even less liklihood of winning.
You're right in that money doesn't always translate into victory. Ask Steve Forbes or Arianna Huffington's gay ex-husband or any number of other examples of lavishly funded losers.
But the campaign with money wins more times than not, and one without adequate funds never wins.
Any campaign which received substantial support from bloggers had their chances improved, whether they were ultimately victorious or not.
The fact also remains that by donating online, blog readers are able to support candidates which best reflect their views.
In a day when politicians are largely spineless wusses scared to death to offer any real opposition to the right wing, netroots fundraising is a means of supporting candidates which show promise of standing up for the interest of the many in this country who want a change.
It's also often a means of rewarding an incumbant who has shown courage in bucking the administration or taking the right stand on issues when other pols are more concerned with being "safe" and thus offering no opposition at all.
I guess the botom line is, win or lose, on-line donations (and it's solitication by blogs and others) is and will continue to be an important and welcome factor in more and more campaigns, and is a means for often neglected groups to let their voices be heard.
I don't know if I misread your point as much as expanded on it.
And I already agreed with that point within my reply.
Gotta go fishin'... wish me luck.
Post a Comment
<< Home