[TheGeezer]

The ban has proved far more damaging to Democrats than to Republicans, who are far better at raising smaller, and still legal, ``hard money'' donations.

This has fascinated me since I first read about it months ago. For the 2000 campaign, the average donation to the "party of the common man" - allegedly the DemocRats - was up in the 5 figure range, but the average donation to the "party of the rich" (the Republicans) was only about $1,000. Or something like that.

It seems that the liberal elite are supported by fellow elitists, not the common man. Fascinating.

[RobbyS]

The wealthy in the United States are far more liberal than the people as a whole. When they complain about the Bush tax cuts, they manage to define rich to mean family incomes as low as $50,000. Even at $200,000 a year a family is not rich. Indeed, a presidential salary of $400,000 barely qualified Clinton.