You left unasked the question -- so how is it that Republicans rake in millions of dollars mnore each year.

You were talking hefty donations form individuals in your stats. How about the hefty donations from companies and groups for the GOP. This has always been the charge, not how much, but where the money comes from and that the GOP is bought and paid for by companies.

PS I am not so naive as to think Democrats are pure on this but your point was flawed for being incomplete.

dimn

If you followed the link, you would see your answer. All of the material is culled from Open Secrets.

In general, by the way, Democrats get tons of money from corporations. They also get tons more from trade unions and the trial lawyer associations.

The Republican fundraising backbone has always been middle class taxpayers and small business owners.

Spend some time on Open Secrets.

Nice try.

You missed the link to the right of the Open Secrets page http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=59

The part that gets form the rich, taxes the rich, your Smarter Harper link opines. Yes, and that proves the pint that they aren't subservient to their donors. The link I provide above, shows the relationship is just a little to cosy when it comes to Republicans and money.

You missed my PS.

Both you and Smarter Harper's also fudge the numbers. None of this money of the top contributors represents money donated to PACs and other lobbyists.

It's easy to draw quick, easy solutions from the Open Secrets, Web site. They present the information - everybody else interprets it.

Like you site BTW

Addendum: Just to open your eyes to the Open Secrets site more, how do you reconcile the link to the Leading Industry contributors.

It shows, yes, lawyers at the top of the industry list for the Ds. But the Top 20 shows an aggregate total of $183 million in donations for the Ds and $467 million for the Rs. Feel free to erase the total for "retired" as an industry.

Connections?

typo - Like YOUR site.

PAC donations should not be conflated with individual donors. PACs were created specifically to reduce the influence of individuals and corporations. They were a campaign finance reform measure, and it's strangeto watch people now act as if they are something corrupt. The nature of an Emily's list or an NRA PAC is radically different from that of a corporation or an individual.

Ditto this bit about fundraisers: The fact that a party rewards its best fundraisers is a shock to you? How do you think Terry McAuliffe got his job? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

And no, the Democrats' love of taxes does not prove that they are less beholden to their donors. What it indicates is that their donors are happy to pay more taxes as long as they get plenty of government contracts and/or special services and protections from the government. They prefer the kind of incestuous business/government ties that make the wealthy more powerful by blurring the line between government and private industry. Taxes are also less of an issue for you if you make most of your money on government contracts, or by getting special legal protections for yourself and your industry. See trial lawyers as a good example.

At the most fundamental level--and this is where Smarter Harper's gets it right--it remains that, for all their vaunted status as the "party of the people," they are the party that gets the most money from the rich, whereas the Republican fundraising backbone remains the middle class and small businesses.

Glad you like the site. Welcome. :-)