Why should you discriminate against someone just because of their occupation?  If a whole bunch of wealthy investment bankers at Goldman Sachs decide to give you money, should you decline?  If say the CEO of Exelon Corp, the largest nuclear power provider in America, offers you a donation, should you turn it down?

And why on earth would you want to deny those contributions, when Republicans have no reservation about doing so?  You need money to control the message.

I'm ready to duke it out on this issue ;-)

I have not yet made up my mind.  I'm not enamoured with the idea of another 4 to 8 years of the Clintons.  Not that I dislike them, I think maybe we need something more.  With such great challenges facing our country, will the Return of the Clintons be enough?  I'm sure I'll answer that question before touching a screen that provides no record of my vote.

I just point out the Exelon and Goldman Sachs ones.  Because I don't think Obama can claim a holier-than-thou position.  If the CEO of Exelon (and their entire executive management) and managing directors at Goldman Sachs are giving you money, it could be out of their political convictions, their desire to do good in the world, or it could be to gain access.  I would just say people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

I think they should pledge to take individual donations only - and report every contribution to the bundlers.  We need sunshine in this process.

These are individual donations.  You don't need a PAC when you can encourage your executive team to give individual donations. 

I understand where you are coming from.  But frankly, it is the way it is.  And until the Supreme Court says money isn't speech, then any regulation you come up with in that framework can be circumvented.

Also, Republicans use aggregators, and it worked quite well for one George W. Bush.  So, why should Democrats not?

Finally, ultimate power rests with the people, though they choose to exercise it so infrequently.  Any amount of money and lobbying cannot overcome a mass response from constituents.

We are limited to $4k in individual donations.  If you or the Supreme Court believes that campaign contributions are free speech, they have imposed a limit on free speech right there.  Free speech has no limits - so by setting this limit I believe that they do not see this as a form of free speech.

I believe it is common sense and don't buy the free speech argument.  You can exercise your speech - go write an editorial or blog about your views.  Tell whomever will listen. 

We should be regulating campaign contributions because the people are no longer represented in many cases.

At the very least, candidates can and should refuse to take corporate money and money from DC lobbyists.  We don't need a law for them to do the right thing.  And if they don't do the right thing on their own initiative, I can guarantee that I won't be voting for them. 

There is no way, in good conscience, that I could vote for Hillary Clinton.  I'll find a third party candidate or not vote before I did that.  Her way of doing politics are part of the problem.  At least Senator Edwards and Obama have shown themselves to be more ethical.

Agreed on contribution limits, the Supremes said Congress could do that in order to create the appearance of integrity.  What Congress could not do is limit expenditures.  And Congress has not made an airtight process here.  And finally on this point, there are limits on your first amendment rights, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

On election reform, I don't disagree that we, as a nation, can come up with a better process.  However, the two parties are a barrier to making the process better because the process works very well for them the way it is.  And really, the place for those reforms are in the General Assembly and the U.S. Congress not individual campaigns.  Why ask the Democratic Party to give up corporate contributions and special interest money, when Republicans won't?  I reiterate that those who have the most money, control the message.

How have Obama and Edwards shown themselves to be more ethical?  And why does taking money from a lobbyist make you less ethical?

1) he does not say Registered lobbyist.  I lobby on NCLB, but do not have to register.  As he has said it, at Yearlykos and tonight at the AFL-CIO, he must not want my money, so I won't give him any more, and perhaps he should return what I gave him.

2)  At Yearlykos he asked who had their own lobbyist.  In fact, I would bet half the people did - registered lobbyists.  Most unions have them, so do many civil rights organizations.  States often have people who lobby officially on behalf of the state - heck, that's why they have DC offices.  There are professional organizations, organizations of retired military, religious organizations, etc. 

3) If he is worried about the influence of corporate lobbyists, then perhaps he should refuse the contributions of all executives who are represented by those lobbyists, but that would be a lot of money

4) this in no way addresses the problem of inordinate access -  I might remind people that the Ken Lays of the world do not have to register as lobbyists, yet can get all the access - legislative and executive - they want. 

I have gotten into some heated discussions on this at dailykos.  I was leaning Edwards but now I am back to neutral.  I don't like demagoguery, and I am not interested in symbolic victories.  I want real change, which this is not.

with yo bad self!

Or Amen! if you prefer.

I think we all know whom he is referring - corporate lobbyists.

It is not a cheap stunt.  DC Lobbyists have unprecedented access to politicians - and are now pouring money into the campaigns.  Well, into Senator Clinton's campaign anyways. 

We are being outspent.  And as with any for profit corporation - they are expecting a return on their investment.

The bottom line is that you won't win dollar for dollar against the corporate lobbyists.  They consider it a part of doing business.

Both Obama and Edwards will take your individual contribution - It is quite a stretch to say they don't want your money.  What is so wrong with regular people making donations?  Why must the system be corrupted with corporate money?