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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12039)	11/1/1998 2:03:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>Im not sure most Republicans really need money from individual contributors the way Dems do. The situation we have here in Ca is completely different. We have some guys out here that are so rich they will contribute heavily and vote for the republican candidate no matter what his stance is on other issues. These republican fundraisers out here are these lavish events. In contrast, we have a case now where the Dem candidate is a moderate and better for the state than the republican so us non-super rich people need to contribute to him to make him a viable candidate. Your implication is wrong Michelle. According to the FEC, the Republicans get a majority of their donations from individual small donors while the Dems get a majority from either fatcats (the Hollywood moguls) or from coerced labor union dues. Every honest political professional will admit to the above. Contrary to your assertion, the most lavish political events in CA this year have been headlined by Clinton for Dem candidates at the homes of the super rich. The Rep edge in small individual donations has been the case since at least 1980. This reflects the fact that the Reps are the party of the middle class while the Dems are the party of the "takers" and those who wish to buy government policy ala Loral.