As the news unfolds, we'll be keeping a close eye on where this money comes from. Despite a lot of crowing about raising money from small donors, if the past is any guide, when all the numbers are reported in detail, it will be obvious that big donors still rule the roost:

• Early money is big money. When they start up their campaigns, while working to establish their competitiveness, presidential candidates concentrate on big donors. It was only later in the 2004 campaign, once John Kerry and George W. Bush were safely established as contenders, that they started raising more money from small donors.
• House and Senate campaigns also rely on big donors. Overall, in 2006, contributions of more than $200 accounted for three fourths (76 percent) of the individual contributions to Senate races. About one out of four of the dollars contributed (24 percent) came from donors of $2,100, the maximum contribution allowed per election. In House campaigns, the percentages were 80 percent from donors giving more than $200 and 18 percent from donors giving $2,100. Even in close races drawing excitement and involvement from the political blogosphere, large donors ruled the day. Sixty-three percent of Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) individual contributions came from donors of more than $200 or more, as did 64 percent of Sen. Jon Tester’s (D-MT), and 71 percent of Sen. Claire McCaskill’s (D-MO).

• Small donors make up a narrow slice of overall federal campaign money. In the 2006 elections, contributions from donors giving $200 or less directly to candidates or federal party committees amounted to some $533 million, according to the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC). That’s only 20 percent of the estimated $2.8 billion spent on the elections, including direct “hard money” contributions to candidates and national political parties (subject to strict federal contribution limits and reporting requirements), as well as hard and unregulated “soft money” spent by outside issue advocacy groups, such as 527 committees.

Read more here.