There are roughly 8 million people employed in science and technology in the U.S. Imagine if we each donated just $5 a month. While that's completely unrealistic to expect, what if we could average $1 a month for each of those workers?
Most people working "in science and technology" do work that's very marginally related to what the EFF does.
Why would a biotech scientist working at a pharmaceutical firm be above-average interested in sponsoring an organisation that's all about software patents and the likes?
It's nearly completely unrelated.
I know this is and HN, and HN is about Silicon Valley, where "technology" equals "software", but really, the world is bigger than that.
I drew my approximation from government data sources. Where have you gotten your idea that "most" are not interested in what the EFF does? Further, where, if at all, are you getting numbers to justify your quantitative approximation that most are not in technology? (Also, side note – the EFF deals with much more than software, despite your implications)
Speaking as someone with a educational and professional background in research psychology, I can honestly say my experience would say you're wrong. As a generalization, I found scientists to care a about free speech, IP laws, fair use and DRM, laws having to do with governmental oversight/intrusion to research. The EFF may not be the first place they'd go, but it's not far off, ideologically.
There are roughly 8 million people employed in science and technology in the U.S. Imagine if we each donated just $5 a month. While that's completely unrealistic to expect, what if we could average $1 a month for each of those workers?