<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[The Disgruntled Small&nbsp;Donor]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Michael Erard <a href="http://www.themorningnews.org/article/what-to-expect-when-youre-electing" target="_self">recounts</a> the big role that small donors have played in political campaigns:</p> <blockquote> <p>For Jimmy Carter, 38 percent of his money came in small donations; it  was 40 percent of Gerald Ford’s. Amazingly, it was 60 percent for  Ronald Reagan in his 1984 re-election. Yet in the informational  antediluvian era of 1976 and 1984, obtaining that money was  time-intensive and expensive. Hitting up a donor the second time cost  just as much as the first. The Internet changed all that, providing  tools that Howard Dean pioneered in 2004, but which Barack Obama rolled  out far more extensively in 2008. Obama hits you up more than once  because it costs him next to nothing to do so. </blockquote> <p>And repeat calling works:</p> <blockquote> <p>In 2008 slightly more than half of Obama’s donors who gave an aggregate  of $200 or more started out giving amounts less than $200. In other  words, the Obama fundraisers were able to up-sell a substantial  percentage of givers. </p> </blockquote> <p>A joint paper (<a href="http://www.cfinst.org/books_reports/Reform-in-an-Age-of-Networked-Campaigns.pdf" target="_self">pdf</a>) from CFI, Brookings, and AEI found that &quot;giving small amounts  seems to heighten nonfinancial forms of participation by people who feel  more invested in the process.&quot; But Erard fears that campaigns may be alienating exactly those donors by repeatedly asking them for more money:</p>]]></html></oembed>