US diplomats cry foul as Obama donors take over top embassy jobs

[Jim Lane]

88. Some statistics about political appointments

According to an August 3, 2009 report from NBC News:

So far, 57% of Obama’s picks for ambassador positions — 34 of 60 — have been political appointees, or people not considered career Foreign Service, according to the American Foreign Service Association. Fourteen of those, or 23 percent, are bundlers. Bundlers are individuals who raise large amounts of money for a candidate by "bundling" together smaller contributions from others. For 2008, anyone who a raised more than $50,000 for candidate Obama are considered bundlers.

In the past 50 years, the average percentage for political appointees has been about 30 percent, according to AFSA. The practice increased under George W. Bush — 36 percent of his picks were political. (Jimmy Carter appointed the least at 24 percent.)

Because many of the political appointments are made early on in a presidency, Obama’s percentages will likely decrease; as more ambassadors are named, more are likely to be career Foreign Service.

(Source: "Ambassadors: Do patronage picks matter?")

This is what I found quickly. I don't have time to follow up on the suggestion in the last paragraph of the excerpt, to see what Obama's cumulative percentage is now, almost four years later. One source quoted in the OP's linked article estimates that it's gotten back to the more typical 30 percent.

IMO the percentage of political appointees is a more meaningful measure than the average amount of money raised (the focus of the OP's linked article). The rising amount just reflects the change in the nature of campaigning and campaign finance. Campaigns have gotten more expensive and so fundraising has been taken to higher levels.