Hubris and money... (UPDATED!)

Ah, the affair is over. Congressional Dems are falling out of love with the Lightbringer:

“They think they know what’s right and everyone else is wrong on everything,” groused one senior Senate Democratic aide. “They are kind of insufferable at this point.”

Number one on the list of grievances: The O-Team, having taken over the party apparatus, has raised money only for the Savior From Illinois, not for any down-ticket Democrats.

Let's talk about money.

After all, it was a commanding $100 million stake at the beginning of the primary season that put Obama where he is today. In an earlier post, I asked the question: If the Lightbringer is having a hard time rustling up that kind of cash now, how did he manage the trick then?

That question is at the heart of this incredibly good analysis by myiq2xu. (I'll call him/her/it myIQ.) MyIQ emphasizes that unlike the field of heavyweights he faced -- Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson -- Obama was, or should have been considered, a lightweight.

After all, he had been in DC for, what, maybe 50 minutes. He had not spent that time productively. He had won his US Senate seat against laughably weak opposition. His earlier career in the Illinois Senate ("Present!") was undistinguished. He was not a military figure, a businessman, a nationally-familiar cleric, or a prominent lawyer. He did qualify as a man of letters, of sorts, based on one book. His national exposure had come in the form of a single (over-rated) speech.

And yet this guy earned $100 mil before the first vote was cast.

John Edwards raised $52 million during the entire course of his campaign. Joe Biden raised $12 million.

How does a candidate with Senator Obama’s resume raise $99 million dollars before a single vote is ever cast? Hillary Clinton raised a phenomenal $230 million through May 31, 2008, but Obama did far better, raising $287 million during the same period. What’s wrong with this picture?

If you read myiq's piece, along with the very interesting commentary that follows, you'll see three main theories for the source of that early financial lead.

1. Blame the GOP. This is the idea mooted by Confluence editor riverdaughter. She thinks that the Republicans so feared Hillary Clinton that they covertly funneled lots of cash to Obi.

I am not persuaded by this theory. Evidence suggests that the GOP sincerely thought Hillary to be the weakest candidate (as did yours truly). Thus, in those early days, she was the one they wanted to run against. That attitude shifted only during the final half of the primary race.

2. Blame the Illinois Combine. MyIQ attributes this theory to the notorious blogger Joseph Cannon. Some of the Confluence commenters have interesting things to say about this idea:

I believe The Combine is responsible along with their foreign connections. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that there have been fictional donors used to funnel foreign cash, and don’t forget how helpful dead people are in politics.

The kind of money that was coming in for Obama would have instantly gone to an investigation mode had those dollars been donated to the Clinton campaign. I went trolling around his web site during those months when the money was seemingly endless and found what I thought looked like a lot of fundraising being done by bundlers getting donations from foreign sources. The idea of an Obama presidency was very appealing to people all over the world who believed his influence would benefit their lives. He has since alienated some of those groups with his non-stop flip flops, and I heard Hamas had withdrawn its endorsement of him. The Gaza had internet cafes dedicated to trying to raise support for Obama.

I would look more suspiciously toward the mideast connections. That Iraqi living in Chicago who was very close to Rezko and who was reportedly fleeing Iraq due to questionable banking practices.

The reference here goes to Nadhmi Auchi, one of the richest men in the world; the charges against him are quite serious. Auchi used a French public firm as a private piggy bank. Later, he became Tony Rezko's partner to the tune of a $170 million chunk of real estate.

Then there's the third theory:

3. Silicon valley. A private source has told Cannonfire that this is it. The money came from Google, from the tech boys, from friends of Al Gore.

The case for this scenario is laid out in an Atlantic piece by Joshua Green, titled "The Amazing Money Machine." This article details how (beginning in 2004) venture capitalist Mark Gorenberg used bundling to get around the limits imposed by the McCain/Feingold law:

He had an idea about how networks could help. “If the most that any one person could write a check for was $2,000,” he said, “then the important people suddenly became those who would put their hand up and say, ‘I’ll raise $50,000 or $100,000.’”

That's how Gorenberg became Kerry's chief fundraiser and, later, the chief money-man driving the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress.

But why Obama? After all, California has always loved the Clintons. The key event, it seems, was a fundraiser hosted by John Roos, the lawyer for many a Silicon Valley bigwig.

Furthermore, in Silicon Valley’s unique reckoning, what everyone else considered to be Obama’s major shortcomings—his youth, his inexperience—here counted as prime assets.

I asked Roos, the personification of a buttoned-down corporate attorney, if there had been concerns about Obama’s limited CV, and for a moment he looked as if he might burst out laughing. “No one in Silicon Valley sits here and thinks, ‘You need massive inside-the-Beltway experience,’” he explained, after a diplomatic pause. “Sergey and Larry were in their early 20s when they started Google. The YouTube guys were also in their 20s. So were the guys who started Facebook. And I’ll tell you, we recognize what great companies have been built on, and that’s ideas, talent, and inspirational leadership.”

Green's fascinating piece documents Obama's appeal as "the hot new thing" in the plastic, fantastic Silicon Valley. Obama's innovative use of social networking software certainly helped. But do the figures discussed in this article get us anywhere near $100 million? I am unpersuaded.

MyIQ responds to the Green piece thus:

I keep hearing about how Obama found a way to spin straw into gold via the internet but it doesn’t make sense.

In this society, we still tend to fall into the trap of presuming that "Computers = magic." Bandy about terms like "high tech" and "Silicon Valley," and many will shrug: Well, that explains that.

Not necessarily.

Can we track the money? Let's head back to the Confluence post, where a conspiracy-oriented reader offers these words...

In terms of small dollar contributions, I think some of this may be illegal money from abroad, or lots of unreported contributions under $200.

Since so many contributions came through the internet, how difficult would it be to disguise a million-dollar donation as a whole bunch of smaller donations?

As you ponder that question, consider this fascinating piece of news:

Another thing about his small donor funds that a lot of people are not aware of is that the campaign often charges for rallies, buttons, bumper stickers, and they count those people as donors. For example, way back, I wasn’t sure which candidate I was going to support and Obama was going to speaking in my area, but you had to pay 10 dollars to get in. Since he wasn’t doing any free events, I figured it was the equivalent of springing for a movie ticket, so I would go. Well, I am counted among his small donors. I didn’t even think about the fact that my ticket counted as a contribution. I read an article during the primary about how unusual it was for the campaign to include such people as their donors and that the Clinton and Edwards campaigns didn’t do that...

If you have any imagination, you can see the possibilities here. Behind the scenes, someone on the O-Team could mark up each $10 "donation" as a $200 "donation." Who would be the wiser? The $190 difference would actually come from...

...well, you know. Somewhere else. You have three choices, listed above.

Am I speculating? Yes. Nevertheless, consider the possibilities. Speculation can sire investigation.

Update: Here's a bit of news that puts the third theory -- and Joshua Green's article -- into perspective. Silicon Valley falls into four congressional districts. Clinton handily won three out of the four, and did very well in the fourth. So if the SV money went to Obi, why didn't he get the votes?