Yesterday’s New York Times described the various moguls, real estate investors and hedge fund executives who are giving big bucks to Barack Obama’s candidacy. The subtext behind the story was clear: forget Obama’s “people-powered” campaign fueled by $50 online donations, because the same fat cats who always run the show are still in power. But while Obama has collected more money from high-end donors (i.e., contributions that exceed $1000) than has John McCain or did Hillary Clinton, the Times failed to explain the obvious reason why: Obama has surpassed his rivals in total contributions. When evaluating such contributors and their agendas, the question is not how much they have given – but to what extent a candidate depends on them to run their campaign. The Times reported that one-third of Obama’s money comes from these large contributors. What they failed to mention is that big donors are funding one-half of McCain’s treasury.

The Times’ front-page article was a classic journalist hit piece – with anecdotal information about various contributors, replete with a chart of Obama’s top fundraisers. Why such a focus? Because “records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton raised in contributions of that size.” That paragraph appears to be the justification for the whole article – giving the Times carte blanche to run a full exposé on who these fat-cat Obama contributors really are.

But that’s like reporting that a Hummer has a larger gas tank than a Geo Metro. It’s been well documented in the media that Obama has outraised his rivals – first in the primary against Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, and then in the general election against John McCain. After collecting over $339 million for his campaign – outraising Clinton by a 3-2 margin, and then McCain by a 5-2 margin – is it really a shock that Obama also raised more from large contributors than his lesser-funded opponents?

That a lot of wealthy donors (who as the Times just discovered, “clearly have policy and political agendas”) gave money to Obama has to be expected – since he’s favored to win the White House. Many of these contributors often give to multiple candidates just to “hedge their bets,” and will almost always give to the front-runner because it’s a safe gamble. It’s an old game we’ve seen before, and these donors are used to playing it well.

What’s changed, however, is the phenomenon of small contributors – the legion of liberal activists who give $50 donations online either through the campaign’s direct e-mail solicitations, MoveOn or on websites like Act Blue or Daily Kos. The Internet has empowered everyday activists to by-pass the traditional gatekeepers in politics, and has democratized which donors come to “own” a campaign. Under the new rules, candidates need not rely exclusively on a small set of donors with deep pockets – which now liberates them to stand more on principle.

Obama would never have won the Democratic nomination without the Internet, as his opponents generally relied on the older fundraising rules. In fact, it was Hillary Clinton’s excessive reliance on big donors who maxed out early that proved fatal to her ambitions. In the final weeks of the campaign, some of these contributors clearly felt that their influence was waning, as they lashed out at other Democratic leaders.

Is it cause for concern that Obama has now courted wealthy contributors like hedge fund executives or real estate investors? Yes, but the more critical question is – does he really need their money? How much of his campaign do they really “own,” and what would happen to the Obama campaign’s finances if enough of these donors felt that he wasn’t sufficiently pursuing their economic interests? The Times answers that question: donations that exceed $1,000 make up about one-third of Obama’s total warchest.

Compare that with John McCain – who has raised half his money from contributions that exceed $1,000. If all these rich donors bailed on McCain, he wouldn’t have enough to make it a competitive race – and so is inherently at their mercy. Obama, on the other hand, still has two-thirds (or $224 million) of his cash coming from smaller contributions. Obama’s rich donors could desert him tomorrow, and he’d still have enough money to match McCain dollar-for-dollar.

Money is power. When large contributors own too much of your campaign, you have an inherent power dynamic. It then becomes relevant to find out exactly who these people are, and what economic agendas they are pursuing. But Obama’s vast network of small contributors suggest that he doesn’t need big donors to fund his campaign – and that many who were profiled in the New York Times are simply “hedging their bets” on the winner. It may have been entertaining reading, but it didn’t provide the adequate context to conclude that there’s foul business going on.