RE: No merit

[Michael Laprarie <mlaprarie@greatventure.com>]

If you truly believe (as your message seems to indicate) that big money is only behind one political party and one set of agendas, then I have some land in Florida that you might be interested in ...

One of my personal beliefs about full donation disclosure is that it would shatter the long-standing self-perpetuated stereotypes of Democrats as the party of the poor and the working man, and the Republicans as the party of the rich and of big business.  If the full extent of donations to the Democratic party by leisure-class wealthy Americans (Rockefellers, Kennedys, Carnegies, etc.), big-name celebrities, trade and labor organizations, and corporate donors were routinely publicized, the party of the common man would have a heck of a lot of explaining to do.

The truth is, as Reed Davis pointed out, private individuals and organizations give to political parties and candidates who most closely represent their views, or who appear to be the least threatening.  Businesses give money in huge sums to both parties, but tend to favor incumbents or sure winners.  The reasoning is simple - enemies in Congress can regulate people they don't like right out of business.  So businesses try to grease all of the palms in order to establish a base with all of the elected officials.  

So there is really no clear division between which party gets the most money from businesses.  Although the numbers vary slightly from election to election, the long term average is about even.  

In short, it is folly to assume that one party would take over politics if donation restrictions were removed.

By the way, since you support the idea that women have "the right to choose", would you oppose the notion of women being able to freely choose which candidates they support and (if they have the financial means) how much money they could give those candidates?