RE: No merit

[Denise Hood <hoodsx3@aol.com>]

Note: I must apologize to the rest of the participants, for the  purely partisan comments that follow, and I will be the first to admit that they really have no place in this discussion. They are addressed specificaly to one individual. I ask your forbearance.

Michael states:
"...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."

Michael, granted, BOTH parties avail themselves FULLY of the system. They HAVE to, it's a matter of political expediency AND political survival. But when you compare the parties (which really has no place in this discussion, but since YOU brought it up), I think MOST people would have NO problem identifying Which party came first, in the "chicken and egg" question of who had the most money, thereby disadvantaging the OTHER party into a "catch-up" situation, and on and on it goes, spiralling hopelessly out of sight and all reasonable proportionality, as one party seeks additional funding to protect it's "edge", and the other party keeps trying to play "catch up." And what it does, is leave the rest of us,ordinary citizens, REGARDLESS of party, behind, in the dust, with NO REPRESENTATION. 
Are you honestly infering in your statement above, that full disclosure would show the Republican party is in actuality the party of the poor and working man, because it would be revealed that the Democratic party receives most of it's financial backing from the rich and big business? Please!
I know that the Republican party seeks to "demonize" the entertainment industry because they just can't figure out a way to appeal to big-monied celebs themselves (other than Charleton "Big Guns" Heston, Tom Sellick and Michael J.Fox) and become the recipients of all that "decadent" Hollywood money. So, it then becomes a case of sour grapes. What they can't HAVE, they demonize. The Dems may have Carnegies, Rockefellers and Kennedys, but as far as household American names with partisan polical muscle, I think that these 3 and any other Democratic benefactors you could round up would equate to nothing more than the TIP of the proverbial ICEBERG, compared with benefactors of the Republican party. Names so numerous I couldn't even BEGIN to list them here. And as far as BIG BUSINESS donors on both    parties' payrolls, it is extremely telling, wouldn't you agree, that BOTH men in our current administration, Bush and Cheney, are big oil men (as WELL as being from the same state)? As far as corporate donors, I don't think there is much question which side they are lined up on. As far as unions go, again, that which you can't control, you seek to either demonize or destroy, and the past 20 years have given rise to a very hostile climate for U.S. labor unions.

And, as for your comment:

"...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?"

 You MUST be being facetious! THe Right to Choose, as everyone is well aware, refers to the Pro Choice/Pro Life controversy. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with financial support of candidates, whatever a person's gender, and I'll wager you already knew that! And, therefore, it has NOTHING to do with what is being discussed here.