The Internet makes it possible to create effective political organizations very quickly.
Finally, the force of financial influence is brought under control by the Internet. In politics Obama’s campaign has established the power of the microdonor. Big business may be able to engineer some large donations through its “channels”, but the need for secrecy and US electoral law, which demands transparency, limits this.
Because of the Internet, Obama turned out to be the wealthiest of the candidates in terms of supporter funding, although personally, he was probably the poorest of them all. The need for a candidate to be wealthy has diminished. Obama’s campaign received donations from over 1,500,000 US citizens, most of whom gave just a few dollars at a time. Obama, it turns out, had the ability to raise more money than the rest of the candidates put together.
So this is the final game-changing point:
Politically, the Internet has ushered in the age of the microdonor and from here on, the microdonor is in control.
Insofar as money controls the outcome of US elections, it is now the microdonor, who is buying this election.
Subscribe to HaveMacWillBlog in a reader
Excellent article. By law in Canada now the maximum donation by any individual is $1,100 to a party, and $1,100 to a local riding association (EDA) in a year. Corporate and union donations are verboten; so, too, issue-based organisations such as PACs do not and cannot exist.
Some parties have done better under this regime than others; but the democratisation of money hasn’t been an unalloyed good (for all that it is good). In many ways the party hierarchies are even more distant than before. Overcoming this is the next hurdle.
Great post Robin -thought provoking!