The Millions Driving Bernie Sanders’ ‘$27 Dollar’ Donations

FACT-CHECKING SANDERS’ MOST POPULAR AD

By Riley Griffin

In anticipation of the California primary, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders released a new advertisement pleading for $27 donations to his campaign. “Give $27 to transform America” ends the wistful 30-second clip, with a lingering link to the Vermont senator’s online donation portal.

Sanders routinely insists that $27 is the average contribution made to his campaign. Beyond its monetary value, the number holds rhetorical significance — distancing the Vermont senator from the corporate elite. Sanders employs $27 as a symbol of agency, encouraging every-day Americans to out-fund super PACs and Wall Street benefactors. This populist approach to fundraising counters the contentious donation capacities granted by Citizens United.

More importantly, the $27 average donation creates a stark contrast between Sanders’ grassroots campaign and Hillary Clinton’s ‘big-money’ fundraising. Whereas 3 percent of Sanders’ donors have contributed the maximum amount of $2,700, 51 percent of Clinton’s donors have already capped-out — according to data from the Federal Election Commission through Feb. 29, 2016. Although Clinton’s small-scale donations have recently been on the rise — she cannot compete with Sanders’ self-claimed $27 average contribution.

Sanders has broadcasted the “$27 average” during various presidential debates and rallies. Even his campaign website features $27 as a suggested donation value. Sanders uses the statistic so often that it’s been parodied by Saturday Night Live and featured in President Obama’s roast at the White House Correspondence Dinner. Such coverage is a testament to Sanders’ branding success.

Because the F.E.C. only identifies “itemized” donation sums greater than $200, data concerning Sanders’ smaller donations is available only to the campaign. As result, Sanders’ “$27 contribution average” has not been independently validated. Curious, I stepped in to investigate the accuracy of Sanders’ claim based on data released by his campaign.

On May 1, 2016, Sanders’ campaign issued a press release stating that “almost 1 million donations” generated a sum of $25.8 million in April. Notably, Sanders’ campaign rounded-up the total count of donations to suggest the lowest possible average donation — ($25.8 million divided by $1 million produces a value of $25.80). The resulting $25.80 corroborates the campaign’s disclosure that “the average contribution was slightly less than $26” in April.

Because the F.E.C. cannot distinguish between Sanders’ “un-itemized” donations, we must trust that the statistics above reflect authentic data. However, Sanders’ phrasing of “almost 1 million” contributions is vague — and the actual count could range anywhere from 900,000 to 999,999. Had the campaign received the lower end of that number — for example, 910,000 contributions — then the average donation would be $28.35. Although the increase is slight, it demonstrates the danger of approximation. Without precise numbers to validate the “less than $26” value, it’s impossible to know whether or not Sanders used rounded numbers to skew data in his favor.

But let’s look beyond April. Sanders first began promoting the ‘$27’ buzzword in the beginning of January. Due to the natural fluctuation of fundraising, it is unlikely that Sanders received a consistent contribution average of $27.00 throughout those six months. In fact, The Washington Post points out that Sanders’ average donation in February was $29.14 — a number derived from campaign data released in a March 1, 2016 press release.

Perhaps it’s more telling to investigate cumulative data from Sanders’ entire campaign. According to the May 1, 2016 press release, Sanders has received “more than 7.4 million contributions” from “more than 2.4 million donors totaling $210 million.” Having crunched this data, it becomes evident that — in total — Sanders’ average contribution is roughly $28.38, a clear deviation from $27. From the same data, I found that the typical donor has given approximately $87.50 — in Sanders’ words, more than three contributions of $27.

Needless to say, $87.50 per donor does not have the same appeal as $27 (really, $28.38) per donation.

For Sanders’ supporters, the difference between $28.38 and $27 may be irrelevant. Despite that opinion, I believe the $1.38 difference has significant implications: In order for $27 donations to amount to the fundraising total of $210 million, there would have to be 7.8 million contributions rather than Sanders’ self-proclaimed 7.4 million. Remarkably, that is 400,000 count difference in individual donations. Although the imprecise language of the press release obscures the reality of Sanders’ campaign finances — the $27 value is still a distortion of the statistical count, sum and average.

Even so, it’s undeniable that Sanders has impressive fundraising abilities. In 2015, the senator set fundraising records having accumulated more individual contributions in the first year of campaigning than President Obama had in 2011, reports Politico. One must wonder, what exactly is driving millions of donors to make millions of contributions to Sanders’ campaign?

The answer is simple, millions of dollars in media buys.

Although Sanders claims to be against “big money” politicians, the Democratic socialist has spent more money than any presidential contender in 2016 election. Sanders has already depleted $166 million in expenditures, more than half of which have been used for media production and advertisements, states The Washington Post. Ironically, Clinton has spent $30 million less than Sanders on media — choosing instead to spend more on her staff. While Clinton has spent $37.7 million on payroll, Sanders has only spent $14 million, reveals an infographic from The Post.

This brings us full circle to Sanders’ new advertisement, entitled “$27.” The video cuts from person to person as they ponder the implications of their $27 donation:

“$27. …It’s the average donation given to Bernie Sanders…to make college tuition free…to ensure a living wage…to get big money out of politics.”

Sanders’ advertisement, “$27,” is dreamy and meditative, evoking images of a better future. It’s a call to action, urging lower and middle-class America to have a collective impact on political outcomes. The advertisement is exceptionally innovative, but is it truthful?

Yes — to a certain extent. True, $27 is within the range of Sanders’ average individual contribution, even if the precise value fluctuates. However, my calculations have their limitations — dependent entirely on data provided by Sanders’ campaign. Undoubtedly, the data is subject to bias, contextualized by numerical estimations and vague terminology, like “almost” and “more than.” Despite the uncertainty of language, we trust that Sanders’ campaign has not forged statistics or taken advantage the of F.E.C.’s inability to analyze unitemized donations. Ultimately, the numbers check out — and $27 is supported by enough evidence to back Sanders’ claim.

Regardless of such statistical analysis, I believe that $27 is a rhetorical device above all else. A $27 donation to Bernie Sanders will not immediately “make college tuition free,” nor will it “take big money out of politics.” Instead, a $27 donation will fuel the funds that allow Sanders to spend $91.6 million on advertisements, like the one discussed above.