by Adam | Barack Obama's September fundraising numbers have been announced, and they are simply staggering. He raised over $150 million dollars in the month, shattering the previous monthly campaign fundraising record of $65 million set by... you guessed it, Barack Obama in August.
The most remarkable number in my opinion, however, is buried below that topline. That number is $86. That's the average donation size in September. That number doesn't tell the whole story, because there's a lot of $25 donations there and a few $1000+ donations balancing it out. But the fact remains that Obama's fundraising would probably be record-breaking even if we ignore the big donations.
That brings me to the titular question of this post. Traditionally, big donors give money to candidates because they expect access and/or influence as part of an unwritten quid pro quo arrangement. But how much access can a big donor expect from Obama, who quite simply doesn't need them? It's not that I think Obama is morally superior to all other politicians, but he is financially superior to all other politicians. Doesn't this continuous small-donor funding stream insulate him from special interests in a fairly unique way? Does it make him ispo facto incorruptible?