ArnoldRimmer said:
Any clear proof for that? Because I really don't believe this is true when huge corporations with big wallets can donate as well. I might believe that the number of donators somehow follows popularity, but not the sum of donations. Comparing the campaign funding of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul for example shows huge differences:
Ron Paul 48 percent from small individual contributions Ron Paul for Congress Cmte, U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, Mason Capital Management, Microsoft, Boeing, Google, Overland Sheep, IBM*
Mitt Romney 10 percent from small individual contributions Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley, HIG Capital, Barclays, Kirkland & Ellis, Bank of America, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, EMC Corp, JPMorgan Chase* |
Mitt Romney is much more popular then ron paul.
As for clear proof. Check out the Book "Freakanomics".
Or really just look at how self funded billionaires have tried to run for president all the time, outspent their competition and still did ziltch.
