They're uppity.

When the Clintons in 1999 needed private money to pay for a turn-of-the-millennium party on the Mall in Washington, McAuliffe rushed to the rescue: "After four months of effort we raised $17 million, helped by a $2 million gift from Vin Gupta, a man who was born on a dirt floor in India ... Danny Abraham, the founder of Slimfast, also gave us a million." From McAuliffe, we learn who gave the money, but rarely the whys.

Do you guys have any investigative reporters? See, when a subject gives you the who, the when, and half of the why-- that's where the investigating part comes in. Is it too difficult to at least ask for some acts of the Clintonites that can be shown to benefit these people in a manner befitting a couple million dollars?

on top of that, they're just not black enough!!!!

Yah, Salon's political coverage is turning out to be a big joke these days.

Politico.com anyone?

mass-based Internet giving may change the class-based structure of political fundraising

Does Walter Shapiro really think that the reason people don't donate to political campaigns is because it's just so difficult to donate without an internet link? Because writing a check is so time consuming, and if we could just give online, we'd all line up to donate? I've occasionally donated to political candidates, but not often. It's not because it's so hard to donate offline, but because I have to find a way to squeeze that money out of my grocery budget, out of my rent money, out of my student loan repayments. One click donating wouldn't make that any easier.

The folks who can easily afford to donate to candidates probably aren't terribly burdened by having to write a check.

Bitter, etc. writes:

"Do you guys have any investigative reporters?"

To be fair, this isn't an investigative piece but an essay about two books.

So when Shapiro writes "From McAuliffe, we learn who gave the money, but rarely the whys," he's just stating a fact about the book. It's not the job of the reviewer to answer the questions left unanswered by the reviewee. It would be the job of an investigative reporter to fill in such blanks.

and stuff his circular firing squad. I for one am damned glad to have Schumer and his brains in the party. But I guess since we retook Congress, the die-hard liberals are missing all that hand-wringing they got to do every day when it was controlled by the GOP.

Dear Editor:

I am surprised to find that Salon is now imitating the mainstream media by forcing an equivication between the monied interests of the Democratic Party with those of the Republican Party. It is no secret that the only way to achieve political power in our country is through money and fundraising. In the absence of some sort of election campaign financing thorugh public and/or more equitable sources, the only way any candidate with any political agenda can run for office and win, is to solicit funding from wealthy sources and people. This is a given in the U.S. political system as it exists now and pointing it out, unless with that is a proposal to reforming election campaign financing, is a ad hominem remark without any sort of practical political point.

While there is no doubt that the Democratic Party owes many favors to its campaign financers, this does not mean at all that both parties have the same agenda and wish the same fate on the middle classes of our country. While there is no hope under Republican rule that there will be any sort of positive reform to any number of issues which concern middle class voters, the possibility does exist under the Democrats, especially if that party can build a large enough coalition in Congress and retake the Presidency. Moreover, it is less likely that our country will be plunged into unecessary wars such as the one going on in Iraq and other forms of dangerious foreign policy adventurism.

The unfortunate reality is that fundraising for election campaigns from private sources is an integral given of the U.S. political system as it actually exists. Nevertheless, even in this reality, Democrats in office are not like Republicans in office. This means we should vote for them as a vote for Democrats remains a more positive alternative for our country and more disasterous years of Republican rule.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur C. Hurwitz

Public funding of political campaigns. Public funding of political campaigns. Public funding of political campaigns.

I swear, the biggest obstacles to public funding of political campaigns - a change that would DESTROY the republicans and put the democrats in power for the next three generations - are DLC DINOs like McCauliffe and Shumer and that unspeakable bastard Rahm Emmanuel (whose "be a me-too fake republican" advice killed at least two democratic congressional challengers in my state.)

Before Democrats can take back the country, we have to take back the party. And that starts with breaking the hold that fundraising has on every candidate. With public money only, candidates would not have to depend on handouts from the national committees, for which they have to grovel and agree to spout the DINO/fake republican party line.

The only Democratic challenger who won in Kentucky was the only Democratic challenger rich enough to tell Emmanuel to fuck off and die. Yarmuth spoke progressive truths that made Rahm faint. But guess who won? Rahm's obedient little boys Weaver and Lucas lost, and lost big, in districts they would have won if they'd been able to campaign as real democrats.

Public funding of political campaigns. Public funding of political campaigns. Public funding of political campaigns.

thank you. Your points are accurate and spot on. It makes my blood boil when I hear Democrats repeat the Big Lie of the far right: That there are no differences between the two major political parties. I will be the first to state that there should be more differences than there currently are. But no difference? If there were no differences between the policies of the the two major political parties, corporations would not spend billions buying the votes of the repubs. If that were the case, they would not have to spend millions convincing poor and middle class Americans that the "death tax" should be eliminated.

The goal of that Big Lie is to suppress the swing vote. Haven't you ever noticed that the right wing extremists ALWAYS vote?

And to those of you who get the vapors when Dems raise big money: Get off your ass and get everyone you know registered to vote, and get them to the polls to vote. WE have the issues on our side. It will take money AND grassroots organizing to send those repubs back to their hell hole. This year in Virginia, every seat in the General Assembly is up. Send us money and help. Keep your whining at home.