The Politicker

Obama Bundlers Rejoice in Their Decreasing Relevance

Getty Images

Barack Obama’s campaign seems to have accomplished two things in the days leading up to the Super Tuesday primaries. It positioned him to battle Hillary Clinton to an electoral stalemate. It also further weakened the declining position of the super-duper Democratic bundler.

Not that they still don't impressively roam the political earth—at Hillary Clinton's "victory" party last night at the Manhattan Center Studios, some of her most loyal and successful fund-raisers were there wearing campaign buttons – but they simply can no longer compete, at least in current circumstances, with the millions of dollars raised by small donors on the Internet.

"The biggest thing from the campaign perspective is all the money that is raised by the people actively trying to raise it is dwarfed by orders of magnitude by the amount that is raised on the Internet," said Obama supporter Orin Kramer, a private equity investor and one of the big names in New York-area fund-raising."

The incredible financial solvency of Obama's campaign has shaken the city's most exclusive zip codes, where the super donors and bundlers of Park and Fifth Avenues have long been among the most coveted supporters of any candidate looking to wage a serious and viable campaign.

Early in the race, Clinton rounded up an impressive number of the city's most sought after contributors. And yet it is eminently possible that Obama, who brought in $32 million in January alone, has out-raised her.

It is Obama's supporters, naturally, who have been the more eager to discuss what they describe as a major shift away from big bundling in the way campaigns are funded.

"The pie has gotten bigger," said James Rubin, calling Obama’s $32 million in a month "preposterous.”

"More people are involved, and I think that necessarily dilutes the impact of any individual. Which is probably a good thing." (Rubin's father, former Clinton administration Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, is supporting Hillary.)

When Kramer, a veteran of Democratic Party fund-raising and former official in the Carter administration, went with Obama it was treated as big news.

He insists it shouldn’t have been.

He noted that while the campaign had been successful in raising money the old way, adopting donors orphaned by John Edwards and Chris Dodd having dropped out of the race and lining up checks from Wall Street, it paled in comparison to the money brought in online.

The Internet money accounted for 85 percent of the overall cash the campaign had raised.

"If you said, 'Orin, what's happening here that most affects money flow has nothing to do with anything you do,' I would say, 'that's correct.'"

The era of the bundler, like the rulers from some political Cretaceous Period, he said, was drawing to a close: “These really are my friends, but you basically say, well if I went out and raised $200,000, you'd say, gee that's really nice.' It is not a material number relative to what Barack Obama raises a day. If I come in with a new $200,000 this morning, you'd say, ‘Great, you're the biggest guy in the country, but the truth is we have raised $200,000 in the morning from people you have never met.’”

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • Stumble Upon
  • Netvibes
  • Windows Live

Comments
Post a comment

Sanaweha Tahsuda (not verified) says:

Can anyone explain why Senator Clinton needed to borrow 5 million from her family fortune? I do not understand this if she is the one with the most delegates, and she won the biggies: CA, NY, NJ, MA, etc.

It is rumored she wants more debates because she does not have 'media air' funds. Debates would be free.

Its obvious that she must be losing her base support if she's running out of money. Is that true? Can someone answer that for me?

Thank you.

john klotz (not verified) says:

The revolution is upon us. The Dean campaign in 2004 was just the first skirmish. Madison's "market place of ideas" has become an actual market place. Because Obama's message was superior, it was bankable on the internet. It's too bad that John Edwards couldn't tap into to it in the same way.

However, I think Obama's importance is not what he means to America, it's what he means for America to the world.

I hope he makes it because after the bitter disappointments of the past eight years there is suddenly a light in the east. The sun may be rising. Here's hoping.

Karen Shoak (not verified) says:

Wolf Blitzer pushed the idea that Obama would be VP nominee for Clinton last week at that debate but it makes no sense when Obama has his own fundraising network of 650,000 (probably over a million by the convention) donors worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He can send an email to a portion of his list and raise $100,000 for a Democratic candidate overnight ($10 from just 10,000 people!) and have that chit to call in later. He doesn't need to be Vice President and he would be making a mistake to meld his donor network into the Clinton network. It would be an insane mistake.

Michele (not verified) says:

The story out of L.A. is that in order to further secure the Hispanic vote, Hillary has already cut a deal with Richardson as her VP running mate. That way, he can back door
into the WH. MAkes sense to me... I cannot imagine Obama being foolish enough to get sandwiched in between Hill & Bill.

Anonymous (not verified) says:

While I am neutral as to the Hillary versus Obama contest, I find it offensive that a determination as to who should be on the ticket as pres. versus VP should be based on who could raise the most money. I do agree that Richardson, Obama or anyone else for that matter would have to be crazy to go for VP on a Hillary ticket, knowing full well that they would have two President Clintons to report to - not to mention that the two Clintons do not apparently always agree on strategy, etc., if recent press reports are to be believed.

Stefan Eksteen (not verified) says:

If Barack doesn't win then I don't know.
looking in from the outside one can clearly see he is what the people of America want and if I could vote I'd vote for Barack Obama for President.

Stefan Eksteen
South African Citizen

Lenny Z. (not verified) says:

If America is ready for change, then Barack Obama and John Edwards combo is the solution. Lets not forger how seriously the Clintons have disrespected our Country and the White House! Hillary is not the answer as she will always look to her husband to step in whe she loses control -- and that is not the quality of leadership America need! We don't need a cry-baby!!

Anne W (not verified) says:

America needs a new face to present to the world. We need a leader with good moral judgement and political courage. We are facing the economic aftermath of eight years, no make that, sixteen years of fiscal profigacy. Those soon to retire, the elderly on fixed incomes, in fact everyone will suffer from the run away inflation that is taking hold in this country. Paul Volker, the last honest Fed Chairman, backs Obama. That's why I do too.

Post a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.