Daily Beast: Spike in GOP Small-Dollar Donations Draws Federal Scrutiny

The campaign for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) says it received $3.5 million this year in small-dollar contributions—so small, in fact, that the campaign doesn’t even need to reveal its donors.

The Federal Election Commission, however, is skeptical.

Last week, the FEC asked the Greene campaign to check its books and make sure those numbers were right—did it really raise nearly 80 percent of its money this year from small-dollar donors? If the past is any precedent, all the campaign will need to do is say yes, and that will be it.

At issue is a rule governing the privacy of small-dollar donors, who have been giving to Republican campaigns in record numbers—sometimes unwittingly. Until a donor gives a campaign a total of $200 for an election—the “itemization threshold”—the campaign doesn’t have to disclose any details, including the donor’s identifying information. Their name, their location, and the name of their employer can remain private, known only to the campaign. …

On one hand, it’s possible to view any sizable anonymous contributions as deserving scrutiny. And experts agree that the disclosure rules offer potential loopholes for illegal contributions and other financial chicanery. But they also believe that, on the whole, those risks are low. They argue that the surge of small-dollar donations is actually a healthy sign for democracy.

Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, told The Daily Beast that despite the lack of transparency, he welcomed the influx of unitemized contributions.

“I am a watchdog of money in politics, but my take on this may not be what one might assume,” Ryan said. He believes that in general, the growth of small-dollar donors is “a really good thing for democracy” and is “in some ways the antidote to the special interest donor.”