MORE FUNDRAISING PERSPECTIVE

This WashPost piece on the potential legacy of the Dean campaign gives us some interesting fundraising numbers to look at. Apparently, it's not just that Dean is far outpacing his rivals, but it's who's giving to him:

The nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute last week provided some evidence supporting Rosenberg's view. "What is also different about 2003 is the emergence of a well-financed candidate -- Howard Dean -- who depends on large donors ($1,000 or more) for only 22 percent of individual contributions and gets 54 percent from small donors (less than $200)," the institute found.

In contrast, President Bush, who has raised $83.9 million, collected 85 percent of it in contributions of $1,000 or more and 10 percent in gifts of less than $200. For other major Democratic candidates, the percentages of large and small contributions were: retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, 45 percent to 35 percent; Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), 88 to 1; Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), 78 to 8; Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), 77 to 11; and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), 78 to 6.

In other words, Howard Dean is the only candidate who gets more of his money from very small contributions than from large ones, and he also has the most money outright. (his average donor gives about $78) The proportion of money from small donations could be seen as a gauge for general enthusiasm for a campaign, and only Dean and Clark have respectable numbers there. Of course, that's old news, they're the only two campaigns generating any real enthusiasm at all.

Dean's "people-powered" fundraising has more effects than just quick cash, argues centrist Democrat Simon Rosenberg:

At the same time, Rosenberg argued, Dean has found a means to directly deal with one of the Democratic Party's major liabilities, the perception that it and its candidates are beholden to a collection of liberal "interest groups." In every losing Democratic presidential campaign since 1980, Republicans have portrayed the Democratic nominee as a captive of such interest groups as organized labor, feminists and Hollywood liberals, an image that was reinforced by the large "soft money" contributions that labor and wealthy liberals used to make to the Democratic National Committee before enactment of McCain-Feingold.

Dean is showing how the Democratic Party can become "a party that can transcend our interest groups, and that a candidate can get elected without owing anyone anything," Rosenberg said.

Contrast this point with attacks on Dean from two other centrist Democrats, the DLC's Al From and Bruce Reed, from a few months ago:

From and Reed described Dean as a member of the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the party, "the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one . . . defined by weakness abroad and elitist, interest group liberalism at home."

Dean's fundraising kinda takes the teeth out of the "interest group"-ism attack, especially since Dean seems compelled to stand up to some interest groups as much as he stands up for them.