I, Ducman, am not saying anything, I am reporting the facts... I know, that must be so annoying for you, heh. Obama received millions of corporate cash as I've linked to, but the lions share of small private unaffiliated contributions went to Ron Paul. This is not something that is a matter of opinion, but of public record. Well, unless you're Obama who held over $4.5 million in undisclosed contributions (I'm guessing union cash under the table, but no way to know for sure).
1) In the 2006 cycle, small private unaffiliated contributions accounted for 97% of the total collected for the Ron Paul campaign: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?CID=N00005906&cycle=2006
2) Ron Paul receives only a tiny 2% of his campaign contributions from Political Action Committees (aka special interest groups / corporations): http://web.archive.org/web/20070930160058/http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00005906&Cycle=2006&CollapseAll=TRUE
3) Ron Paul had the lowest corporate contribution of all 2008 candidates: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
And yes, most voters do not give money to their favorite candidate, they merely vote. Those that LOVE rather than LIKE their candidate are the ones that are willing to actually open their wallets, and Ron Paul had a disproportionate number of highly motivated supporters than Obama in that respect. Unfortunately, he didn't have the media, corporate America, and ACORN driving around buses picking up random homeless people to vote for him like Obama.
I really have no idea why you're annoyed by your own facts, they're actually quite amusing when you try to add them up.
So what you're saying is, Paul has a small band of fanatical worshipers who have far more money than the average voter. Very likely the same people that paid to read his KKK Newsletters. Wonder where they got all that money from.