Color of Presidential Money in NC, 96% white

[G_j]

*Edited to change subject line for clarity.

Color of Presidential Money PR
http://www.democracy-nc.org/whatsnew/colorofpresmoneypr082003.html

Bush Has Zero African-American Donors In Large Southern State; Edwards Gets More Money From Republicans Than From Blacks

The study by Democracy North Carolina, a nonpartisan money-in-politics research group, examined 1,436 donors who are identified by name on disclosure reports because they gave a presidential candidate over $200 in 2003. It is believed to be the first comprehensive analysis of the race and gender of all identified campaign contributors from a state to presidential candidates

the group found that 96% of the North Carolina presidential donors are white and 67% are men. That profile contrasts sharply with the make up of voters in the state. According to State Board of Elections statistics for February 2003, less than 80% of registered voters are white and only 45% are men.



The study found that:

• Of the 201 North Carolinians giving over $200 to George W. Bush before the July 1 cutoff, 98% are white, none are African Americans, and 2% are Hispanic or Asian.

• North Carolina native John Edwards had the most donors by far - 1,108 giving over $200. Of this number, 95% are white, 3% are African American, and 2% are other people of color.

• Bush received five times as much money from white Democrats as he did from all non-whites, while Edwards got nearly twice as much from white Republicans as from people of color.

• Neither of the African Americans among the leading candidates for president (and the only woman) - Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton - received more than $200 from any N.C. donor.

..more..

[tjdee]

1. But, 96% of pres. donors are white. And Edwards gets more from blacks than

all of the other candidates.

So really, it would appear that Edwards is getting the most money from black people than anyone else in North Carolina, which sounds about right.

I'm sure there's a good reason for the writer of the piece to focus on how much black support he *isn't* getting.

Geez.

[Qutzupalotl]

2. Also worth emphasizing

He could be getting donations of less than $200 from quite a large number of blacks. No way to tell from this.

[G_j]

3. The focus in the study

isn't Edwards, it's the donors in NC.

[tjdee]

4. Well, the title of the article is....

I know, the actual article is about something slightly different than the title, but the title mentions Bush and Edwards (which makes sense, as it's a NC study).
It seemed to me at first read that because Bush got ZERO, it was an attempt to make everyone else look unimpressive as well. As an Edwards supporter, maybe I latched on to that aspect.

[G_j]

5. true

the headline is misleading.
I've edited the subject line.

[Stone_Spirits]

7. This seems to be the general point

being made,

<snip>
"When donors don't look like voters, that's a problem for a democracy - especially when donors can determine who is deemed a viable candidate," said Peter Walz, who helped coordinate the study. "The goal of democracy is 'one person, one vote,' but the campaign financing system seems stuck in the era when elections were restricted to 'white men with property.' "
<snip>

**Living in NC myself, I find this not suprising at all.

[G_j]

8. no, not suprising at all

but something that needed to be documented.

[G_j]

6. kick

:kick: