2008年网络筹款:新模式?外文翻译资料

英语原文共 18 页，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

2020届英文翻译

题 目： Internet Fundraising In 2008;A New Model?

2020年3月1日

英文原文

Internet Fundraising in 2008: A New Model?

Clyde Wilcox

（Georgetown University）

Abstract: The surge in internet fundraising in 2004 and especially in 2008 suggests that campaigns may have found a way to involve a new group of citizens in giving. Using data from an earlier 2000 survey of large and small donors, I show that internet donors are different from other small donors in interesting ways.

Key words: campaign finance, money and politics, contributions, internet

Three startling figures signal a new dynamic in presidential fundraising in 2008. In January, 2007, Senator Barack Obama raised more than $35 million dollars from individuals for his primary election campaign against Senator Hillary Clinton, including $16 million in contributions of $200 or less. More than 90% of his donors in January gave $100 or less, and more than 40% gave $25 or less. Obamarsquo;s total was higher than all combined Republican presidential candidates. Just a few days later, Obamarsquo;s campaign announced that it had raised more than $7.5 million over the internet in just 36 hours.

Perhaps more surprisingly, on November 5, 2007 GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul raised $4.07 million in individual contributions in 24 hours, primarily through the internet. A Gallup poll conducted of national Republicans completed the previous day showed that Paul had the support of less than 1% of Republicans nationwide.

To put these figures in perspective, consider the following. In January, 2004, George W. Bush raised $12 million from individual donors. During that same month, John Kerry raised $4 million and Howard Dean raised $6 million. At the time, these were seen as large sums – indeed Bush and Dean both set new campaign fundraising records for their respective parties. But Obama raised more in 36 hours than Dean had in the entire month, and his January total was approximately three times greater than what Bush had raised just four years before. And Ron Paul – a footnote in the GOP polls – raised more money in a single day than John Kerry did in the entire month of January, 2004.

The explosion of internet fundraising has practical implications for campaigns. It may well transform the dynamics of nomination campaigns. Hillary Clintonrsquo;s fundraising strategy of courting large donors has been very successful – in January she raised 25% more than George Bushrsquo;s record total in 2004, and her total was more than twice what Dean had raised. But Obamarsquo;s record haul gave him a huge advantage in advertising in several key states. Moreover, the vast majority of Obamarsquo;s donors have not made maximum contributions, and so they can give again, and again, and again. Meanwhile a majority of Clintonrsquo;s money has come from donors who have given the maximum legal contribution.

But it is possible that internet fundraising will have a more profound impact on who contributes, and how they become involved in politics (Wilcox, 2001). It might enable candidates to reach a new set of potential donors, and therefore broaden the

demographic and political range of the pool of people who finance American elections. The internet has provided a new technology to reach smaller donors – one that is cheaper, allows for a wider range of ideology, and provides a wider range of incentives than existing techniques such as direct mail. If the internet ultimately involves a group of donors who have different backgrounds and political views than the existing donor pool, then it might have positive democratic effects.

The 2000 survey is a rare opportunity to look at smaller donors. The law requires campaigns to disclose the names and addresses of contributors of more than $200, but not of donors of smaller amounts. Yet candidates who seek matching funds must provide to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) the names and addresses of small donors as part of their submission for funds. In the 1980s and early 1990s the Commission did not release matching fund records to the general public, so there could be no surveys of small donors during this period. More recently, in 2004 and again in 2008 the biggest campaigns did not seek matching funds, so they did not submit lists of names and addresses of small donors. But in 2000 all but two candidates received matching funds, and the FEC disclosed their names and addresses. And George Bush refused matching funds but did disclose the identities of his donors on the internet. Thus only the relatively small number of small donors to Steve Forbes brief campaign could not be included in the survey.

Contributing and the Donor Pool: Motives, Means, and Opportunity

Campaigns seek to identify citizens with the motives and means to give, and then provide them with the opportunity to do so. The vast majority of citizens can think of many more gratifying things to do with their money than to give it to presidential candidates. Thus the highest estimates suggest that fewer than 2% of citizens gave to a presidential candidate in 2004 – the previous record year for presidential fundraising. Potential donors may be motivated to seek a mixture of three benefits –material benefits for their business or their families, social or solidary benefits that come from the pleasure of interacting with politicians and other donors, and

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[255163]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word