Reader Mail On Clinton And Fundraising

Nancy Armstrong of Haysville, KS writes:

Dear Marc,

My husband was one of those new donors. He has finally become involved in politics. His immediate family was never involved in politics. His aunt and uncle, Julie and Lionel Drew were very involved in politics in Savannah, GA but they just did not influence him enough. I have always been politically before and after my time on active duty Navy (military people are not allowed to be politically active so to speak). [Ed note: the contribution receipt is attached to the e-mail.]

I think this will dispel any rumors or disbelief that new donors are donating $100 or more. The people at one site when all donations were added had gone to Hillary's website and donated more than $15,000. One of the donations was for $2100. The first time the person had donated.

K,A, writes:

Hmm... I don't think you are a dupe. I think the American people are maybe incredibly stupid. Andrew Sullivan's article is correct. MANY, many people who don't read newspapers and are not really paying attention to this race in any depth are buying into the Clinton "brand." Maybe this country has finally produced the ultimate brand-oriented consumers. How desperately sad.

A.L. writes:

Others are skeptical simply because they think the Clinton camp is lying. I don't.
But the numbers are not self-explanatory. As I say, they are an order of magnitude better than her effort from Feb. 5 to Feb. 10, say. It doesn't make sense. Consider this: you properly report that the campaign had to have funneled some big-dollar donors to their internet portal, rather than simply cutting a check, as usual. But how many? And what portion of 10 mil do they account for? It could be a very large portion. 2,000 people could have given $2,300. And 98,000 people could have given an average of $50. If this haul represents a new tactic, specifically, shunting most or ALL of their traditional, high-dollar fundraising income through the Web, then what we're seeing is a fundamentally differentphenomenon than what we've been reporting on all cycle. That's just one way we might not be seeing the full truth, without actually having been lied to.

A.R. writes:

There is one factor I've yet to see you mention regarding the recent $10 mil fundraising total for Sen. Clinton. It is highly likely (and we won't have verification until May 20, by which point it will be forgotten) that a substantial percentage of this money consists of general election funds not usable in the primary. It's well known that a significant portion of her donor base consists of $2300 maxxed donors; given her Tuesday night pleas for "just $5", it would seem a very likely possibility that she got many thousands of very small donations, combined with capped donors giving another $2300 for the general, to come up with the "average $100 donation" that led to the $10 mil figure.

Her March numbers bear out a very similar scenario; if I recall, $20 mil total raised but only $8 mil of that usable for the primary, leaving her in red. You should clarify that in all likelihood $3-6 mil of this $10 mil recently raised is irrelevant and must be refunded if she does not win the nomination, and is being trumpeted only in an attempt to manipulate her media image. While your stance is appreciated, I trust you value honesty in reporting.