Didn’t suggest he supports terrorists? Oh wait…

*(It’ll be too bad in a sense, since you just know Republican strategists are going to conclude that they didn’t go negative or critical enough, and the next campaign is going to be that much more unpleasant to watch.)

Well, perhaps one might not ignore it, but it should be acknowledged that it’s not relevant to the main point of the post.

Really though, I doubt Robin intended the words “to signal private info about candidate quality” to necessarily mean that the public interest theory excluded the tool theory.

Ah, I see; you should have made that point much clearer in your post. The simplest interpretation that I have is that private interest theory is more likely to be correct for large donations. From the point of a politician, too, it is much easier to do a small specific favour that greatly aids one donor, than a large favour that slightly aids lots of small donors at once. Reciprocity, threats, etc… are also much easier for a single large donor.

I’m not entirely sure what “campaign finance reform” means in an american context, but the implications of the above would be that only large donations are a problem – or donations from a large organised class (say, trade unionists) that share similar interests.

The obvious legislative fix would be to rule out large donations (easy to do) and to rule out organised small donations (rather more tricky; the first step would be to forbid mass donation campaigns by organisations other than political parties). No idea what the current legal situation is in the US at the moment (and the second fix has some quite troubling freedom of speech implications).

Brian and g, you don’t have to intend to send a signal for a signal to be sent.

Sorry there Robin, but your post clearly says “which says we donate to signal private info about candidate quality”, implying that donors were intending to send that signal.

Paul, given your assumptions it seems you should take Obama’s rich donors as bad news about Obama.

I would read it that way.

We could count this as a version of 2a, where the “aberration” is that Obama’s donors are required to follow campaign finance laws that cap donations at $2300. Or, we could count it as a variation on 1, where we reject the theory that most donations are attempts to buy favors, but still support limits on campaign financing because, in the absence of those limits (which are market-destroying price controls), there will be enough donations-for-favors to be a problem. The non-favor-seeking donors’ motivations aren’t essential here, but they’re probably pretty similar to the motivations of people who donate to other charities & issue groups.

You also very clearly described “private interest” as “in trade for favors.” There’s a world of difference between buying favors and donating to someone who’s already planning to benefit your group at the expense of other groups.

Your post really looks like a critique of a candidate disguised as an analysis where the candidate is just a data point. Why contrast Obama and Bush? From what I’ve heard, in terms of total amount and reliance on small donations, they’re near each other and away from everyone else.

The top two fund-raisers are also the top two in small donations. Doesn’t that seem a little more significant than which one is slightly more or less than the other?

I expect the Powers That Be will notice for themselves, but just in case: “Missy”‘s comments above are not only content-free but also spam.

Simon, what in Roger’s comment suggests that he thinks the private interest theory doesn’t apply to Obama donors?

I interpreted his comment incorrectly. My apologies.