From an article in the L.A. Times April 2007: "An Asterisk to Obama's Policy on Donations":
"Obama said in his first-quarter financial report that he received money from 104,000 donors, twice as many as Clinton, suggesting a disproportionate number of small contributions. But the Campaign Finance Institute said Obama still received 68% of his money from donations of $1,000 or more, compared with 86% for Clinton."
This article covers how he weasels around accepting money from lobbyist eqivalents. If Obama as the Democratic candidate accuses McCain of taking lobbyist money while he (Obama) is people-funded (and he hasn't switched gears), the Rove attack machine will chew him up. It is sad to hear a candidate attack another for taking lobbyist money and pretend that he hasn't taken a "dime."
http://www.caclean.org/problem/latimes_2007-04-22.php"Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, Obama makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from "federal lobbyists." His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign.
But the Illinois Democrat's policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.
Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.
"Clearly, the distinction is not that significant," said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.
"He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different," Weissman said. "But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists." "