Yes, lobby. It is not sanctified as “authentic democracy of massive grassroots” by being online. It is not cleansed merely by being smaller contributions by many. It's a lobby, pure and simple — nothing new. Let's not get overly giddy about it.

And some very big questions are raised when this lobby doesn't have to fall under the scrutiny that it would if under public financing.

How will the public even be able to scrutinize how all these Facebooked and Twittered millions are used in attack ads? They *do* go to Youtubing ads and the massive distribution of memes on all the email lists, blogs, news groups, etc. So how can you monitor something like that? That's what they're counting on — under the guise of “democracy” in fact becoming less transparent because they are dispersed.

Lobbyists don't cease become lobbyists just because they are 20-something, have i-Phones, and donate $2000 instead of $200,000, bundled on a blog or Second Life island instead of in a Manhattan penthouse. Netroots are not grassroots.

Yes, lobby. It is not sanctified as “authentic democracy of massive grassroots” by being online. It is not cleansed merely by being smaller contributions by many. It's a lobby, pure and simple — nothing new. Let's not get overly giddy about it.

And some very big questions are raised when this lobby doesn't have to fall under the scrutiny that it would if under public financing.

How will the public even be able to scrutinize how all these Facebooked and Twittered millions are used in attack ads? They *do* go to Youtubing ads and the massive distribution of memes on all the email lists, blogs, news groups, etc. So how can you monitor something like that? That's what they're counting on — under the guise of “democracy” in fact becoming less transparent because they are dispersed.

Lobbyists don't cease become lobbyists just because they are 20-something, have i-Phones, and donate $2000 instead of $200,000, bundled on a blog or Second Life island instead of in a Manhattan penthouse. Netroots are not grassroots.

Yes, lobby. It is not sanctified as “authentic democracy of massive grassroots” by being online. It is not cleansed merely by being smaller contributions by many. It's a lobby, pure and simple — nothing new. Let's not get overly giddy about it.

And some very big questions are raised when this lobby doesn't have to fall under the scrutiny that it would if under public financing.

How will the public even be able to scrutinize how all these Facebooked and Twittered millions are used in attack ads? They *do* go to Youtubing ads and the massive distribution of memes on all the email lists, blogs, news groups, etc. So how can you monitor something like that? That's what they're counting on — under the guise of “democracy” in fact becoming less transparent because they are dispersed.

Lobbyists don't cease become lobbyists just because they are 20-something, have i-Phones, and donate $2000 instead of $200,000, bundled on a blog or Second Life island instead of in a Manhattan penthouse. Netroots are not grassroots.

Having said that I have a couple other thoughts…

For McCain, this situation is “Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.” Meaning (for heads) if Obama did opt in, then McCain would win because Obama would have less money to spend and McCain and the Reps. have all those 527s. For tails… if Obama opts out of public financing, then McCain can paint Obama as a flip flopper (though McCain should really speak…..).

I think the spirit of campaign finance is to take away special interest money/power. So I think what Obama has done is put the power into the hands of the people.

I'd like to remind everyone that just after Obama “officially” became the presumptive nominee after the last contest, one if the first things he did was, prohibit the Democratic National Committee from accepting money from federal lobbyists or political action committees.

I mean isn't this what we want? Isn't accepting money only from individuals true public finance?

I never thought I'd see the day that the GOP, the party of “big money” and wealthy donors, was actually hurting for donations. George Bush really does have a legacy!

Having said that I have a couple other thoughts…

For McCain, this situation is “Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.” Meaning (for heads) if Obama did opt in, then McCain would win because Obama would have less money to spend and McCain and the Reps. have all those 527s. For tails… if Obama opts out of public financing, then McCain can paint Obama as a flip flopper (though McCain should really speak…..).

I think the spirit of campaign finance is to take away special interest money/power. So I think what Obama has done is put the power into the hands of the people.

I'd like to remind everyone that just after Obama “officially” became the presumptive nominee after the last contest, one if the first things he did was, prohibit the Democratic National Committee from accepting money from federal lobbyists or political action committees.

I mean isn't this what we want? Isn't accepting money only from individuals true public finance?

I never thought I'd see the day that the GOP, the party of “big money” and wealthy donors, was actually hurting for donations. George Bush really does have a legacy!

Having said that I have a couple other thoughts…

For McCain, this situation is “Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.” Meaning (for heads) if Obama did opt in, then McCain would win because Obama would have less money to spend and McCain and the Reps. have all those 527s. For tails… if Obama opts out of public financing, then McCain can paint Obama as a flip flopper (though McCain should really speak…..).

I think the spirit of campaign finance is to take away special interest money/power. So I think what Obama has done is put the power into the hands of the people.

I'd like to remind everyone that just after Obama “officially” became the presumptive nominee after the last contest, one if the first things he did was, prohibit the Democratic National Committee from accepting money from federal lobbyists or political action committees.

I mean isn't this what we want? Isn't accepting money only from individuals true public finance?

I never thought I'd see the day that the GOP, the party of “big money” and wealthy donors, was actually hurting for donations. George Bush really does have a legacy!

“Since this conflicts with an earlier pledge…” – JG

So.

A politician who cut his political teeth in the wards of the bare knuckle Chicago Democratic political machine, turns out to be just another politician who will say whatever he needs to say to get votes and do whatever is politically expedient to get elected.

Huh.

Who would’ve thunk it?

“Since this conflicts with an earlier pledge…” – JG

So.

A politician who cut his political teeth in the wards of the bare knuckle Chicago Democratic political machine, turns out to be just another politician who will say whatever he needs to say to get votes and do whatever is politically expedient to get elected.

Huh.

Who would’ve thunk it?

“Since this conflicts with an earlier pledge…” – JG

So.

A politician who cut his political teeth in the wards of the bare knuckle Chicago Democratic political machine, turns out to be just another politician who will say whatever he needs to say to get votes and do whatever is politically expedient to get elected.

Huh.

Who would’ve thunk it?

(Where's all that money coming from? Soros? K Street? Traditional Dem dinosaur interest groups looking to a return of their influence and the truly failed policies of the past, in the name of “change”? This campaign is getting more and more interesting.)

(Where's all that money coming from? Soros? K Street? Traditional Dem dinosaur interest groups looking to a return of their influence and the truly failed policies of the past, in the name of “change”? This campaign is getting more and more interesting.)

(Where's all that money coming from? Soros? K Street? Traditional Dem dinosaur interest groups looking to a return of their influence and the truly failed policies of the past, in the name of “change”? This campaign is getting more and more interesting.)

Yes, they can, but to what degree are they doing that?
Another commenter here went on for several days about foreighners being able to donate through PayPal (even though PayPal payments are not anonymous)..
Some could funnel money to any campaign by delivering cash to an intermediary.

Anything can happen. There are no fool proof rules.
However, in order to make a valid accusation, the accuser is obligated to provide proof that a possibilliy is an acuality, at least to some degree.

It's possible that Marlowecan is actually a female jihadist. Should it up to you to prove me wrong?
—-
B.
Re: yes. Full stop.

Again, Even 'yes' has context.
Do I support public transport? Yes. Full stop.
Do I think it's financially feasable in rural areas? No.
If conditions change to make public transport affordabe everywehere, would I support it? Yes. Full stop.
—————-

You talk about hammering and such. The methods of politics is exactly what I hate most.
We'd be a lot better off if we discussed policies in detal rather than hammering with isolated excerpts. It's misleading and leads to very bad policies

Yes, they can, but to what degree are they doing that?
Another commenter here went on for several days about foreighners being able to donate through PayPal (even though PayPal payments are not anonymous)..
Some could funnel money to any campaign by delivering cash to an intermediary.

Anything can happen. There are no fool proof rules.
However, in order to make a valid accusation, the accuser is obligated to provide proof that a possibilliy is an acuality, at least to some degree.

It's possible that Marlowecan is actually a female jihadist. Should it up to you to prove me wrong?
—-
B.
Re: yes. Full stop.

Again, Even 'yes' has context.
Do I support public transport? Yes. Full stop.
Do I think it's financially feasable in rural areas? No.
If conditions change to make public transport affordabe everywehere, would I support it? Yes. Full stop.
—————-

You talk about hammering and such. The methods of politics is exactly what I hate most.
We'd be a lot better off if we discussed policies in detal rather than hammering with isolated excerpts. It's misleading and leads to very bad policies