On Feb 17, 6:57=A0pm, Stevie Nichts <nix2nic...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> What's wrong with this picture?
>
>
---http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/sup..=
..
>
> Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic
> presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign
> contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study
> shows.
>
> "While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out
> thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates
> pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials
> serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama
> and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last
> three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics
> re****ted today.
>
> About half the 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party
> leaders, and others -- have committed to either Clinton or Obama,
> though they can change their minds until the convention.
>
> Obama's political action committee has doled out more than
> $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the
> 81 who had announced their sup****t for Obama, 34 had received
> donations totaling $228,000.
>
> Clinton's political action committee has distributed about
> $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had
> announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
> ---
>
> This gives a new meaning to "democracy in action."
Don't you Republicans believe that money is a form of free speech, and
that any limitation on any sort of campaign contribution is a heinous
violation of the first amendment, and that legislators aren't really
influenced by the contributions they receive? I'm confused...
|
