Barack Obama’s steamroller image as a fundraising machine was built on the idea that small contributors from all around the country poured $200 and less into his campaign.

The Obama campaign even promoted the idea that contributors of $200 and less made up 50% of the donations.

That is true…sort of.

The Campaign Finance Institute released some interesting figures after looking through the Obama campaign’s financial reports.

It is true that 49% contributed $200 or less. However, many of those contributors went on to give more contributions later. The contributors who cumulatively gave $200 equaled 26%.

That is right on par with George Bush’s 2004 total of 25%.

Obama’s total is not even the highest for any major candidate in the last two elections. Howard Dean gets that honor. In 2004, 38% of his contributors gave a grand total of $200 or less.

So is the Obama fundraising image a sham?

Not really.

The mid-level donor range is $201 to $999. Obama raised 27% of his money from there. In 2004, George Bush raised 13%.

Combine those two totals and Obama did raise 53% of his money from people who contributed less than $1000. For comparison, John Kerry raised 44%, John McCain 41% and George Bush 38% from people who contributed less than $1000.

To put it in another perspective, Barack Obama raised $239 million from these contributors. George Bush raised $256 million from all contributors in 2004.

To be fair, Obama did not participate in public financing in the general election. Yet at that point, he had already raised more than anyone ever had in a Presidential campaign anyway.

The fact is that Obama raised prodigious sums of money from small to large donors. Small donors may not have dominated his campaign, but Obama was able to attract repeat donors as no one has before — 212,000 in all. The repeat donors were the recipe of success for Obama. Together, small and medium-sized donors combined for a record-setting combination.