To the editor: Your analysis of contributions from small donors, or lack thereof, to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign fails to consider many of us who support Clinton but haven't given as much to her as we did to President Obama. ("Hillary Clinton keeps fishing for big money while lagging behind with smaller donors," Oct. 14)
I read about the huge donations she is receiving from wealthy friends. I hear about her personal wealth on the national news. She has more money at this point in the campaign than any other candidate in history.
I am now retired and on a fixed income, and I figure she doesn't need my money. Clinton supporters read. They listen to National Public Radio. This constant reporting of the money she has hurts her, even among those of us who believe in her and desperately want her to win.
Stephanie McIntyre, Simi Valley
To the editor: I asked my fourth-grade son Sam a math question: "Clinton raised 24% of her total contributions from small donors while Donald Trump raised 65% of his contributions from small donors. Who raised the most money from small donors?"
Sam: "How much did each raise total?" I shrugged. He shrugged.
I looked at Bloomberg.com and found as of Oct. 15, Clinton had raised $911 million and Trump $423 million. I gave Sam the numbers to complete the problem: "Clinton totals $218 million from small donors and Trump has received $274 million, so Trump raised the most." I asked Sam what percentage Clinton raised to Trump's sum; his answer was 79%.
These numbers tell a different story than The Times' front-page graph. Obama raised more than $1 billion in 2012; his 48% from small donors amounted to about $500 million. Both 2016 nominees are far behind Obama's connection to small donors.
Tricia Bregman, Santa Ana