Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (15510)	9/22/2007 8:46:25 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

On September 10th, for example, Hillary Clinton announced that her campaign would return $850,000 in contributions bundled from 260 donors by Norman Hsu, a mysterious businessman. Mr Hsu is not a lobbyist. It is unclear whether he thought he would gain influence in return for his fund-raising or whether he simply wanted his photo taken with grateful politicians. Either way, he has become a headache for the Clinton campaign since it is alleged that some of the money he bundled may have come from himself, which would violate limits on donations. The Democratic presidential candidates have taken voters' worries about money politics to heart. John Edwards routinely takes aim at Washington lobbyists. If you bring them to the table, he warns, “they'll eat all the food”. Barack Obama has called the need to raise money the original sin of politics. He and Mr Edwards say that they will not take campaign contributions from lobbyists. Mrs Clinton does, but insists she is tough enough to take their money and ignore their requests. Her critics say this stance shows she is tied to politics as usual. Or maybe she is just being practical. The eventual Republican nominee will surely take money from lobbyists. An opponent without it would be at a financial disadvantage. Ethics reform is an admirable goal. But the current system instead promotes a kind of mutually assured degradation. economist.com