In the comment section of my post “The Power Behind Obama’s Fundraising Success,” reader Chuck Norton links to a post at his own blog where he quotes Factcheck.org about where Obama’s money’s coming from, versus where McCain is getting his money from (and what Obama says about it). Since it’s something readers should be aware of, I decided to post some of the information here as well.

Let me start by saying that PACs, lobbyists, big corporations also represent real people. The idea that, somehow, only small donations matter is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Having said that, Obama and others have made this an issue, so it’s only fair for us to check whether Obama’s words match his rhetoric.

Factcheck.org is clear about it; no.

Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.

One reason, he said, is that “John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.”

We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain’s total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC’s receipts…

To say that either the McCain campaign or the RNC are “fueled” by money from lobbyists and PACs is an overstatement, to say the least. Such funds make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain’s presidential campaign receipts and 1.1 percent of the RNC’s income.

McCain – As of the end of April, the McCain campaign had reported receiving $655,576 from lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is less than seven-tenths of 1 percent of his total receipts of $96,654,783. His campaign also took in $960,990 from PACs, amounting to just under 1 percent of total receipts. The two sources combined make up less than 1.7 percent of his total.

RNC – The Republican National Committee has raised $143,298,225, of which only $135,000 has been come from lobbyists, according to the CRP. That’s less than one-tenth of 1 percent. It also took in about 1 percent of its receipts from PACs, CRP said. Taken together, that’s about 1.1 percent from PACs and lobbyists…

The lobbyist figures we give here could stand some minor refinement. The totals might be reduced somewhat if the CRP used Obama’s rather narrow definition of “lobbyist.” Obama makes a point of refusing money from those who are currently registered to lobby at the federal level. The CRP has a broader definition, counting money from anyone working at a lobbying firm, registered or not, state or federal, and their families as well. By CRP’s definition Obama himself has taken in $161,927 from lobbyists…

Also, for what it’s worth, the Democratic National Committee has historically been far more reliant on PAC and lobbyist money than the RNC. In 2004, PACs provided about 10 percent of the DNC’s total fundraising and only about 1 percent of the RNC’s total, according to the CRP. Obama, after he sewed up enough delegates to win the party’s nomination, sent word to the DNC to stop accepting PAC and lobbyist donations.

Shorter; this isn’t the big guy against the little guy.

However, there is something about Obama’s claim that he is more dependent on smaller amounts than McCain is. In the comment section of before mentioned post reader Kevin H. writes:

The more full nuanced truth is that Obama recieved 45% of his money from contributions under $200 and 28% from donors giving the maximum of $2,300. McCain is basically the inverse, with 24% and 46% respectively.

For a little historical context: in 2004 Kerry was 31%/35%, Bush was 32/49, and Nader was 50/24. I couldn’t find stats on the 2000 elections or earlier.

So, while it is certainly wrong to say that his campaign is funded mostly by small donars, it is accurate to say that the Obama campaign has achieved a level of grass-roots support that is more indicative of underdog third party fundraising than seen in recent history for a major party candidate.

Is it an important issue? To me it’s not. To me it doesn’t matter. At all. But it seems that it does matter to many Americans. If that’s the case, they should at least be aware of the facts, not merely the rhetoric.