Remember the days when McCain-Feingold was going to take money out of politics? Now, people are more aware of how much money is raised, but have no idea about the issues.
Wonder what would happen if the maximum amount you could give was reduced to $50? Then do you think that candidates would be raising $100m a month?

And the money is from the grassroots. I know I have given money, even up to $100 to get Hillary's ad of her closing remarks in the debate on in key primary states Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas even though I am unemployed. Or maybe because I am.
Hillary can create jobs and as a man of less than great health, I have diabetes2 and some heart issues, 2 stents in an artery, high blood pressure and high cholesterol, I believe in her health program, so I keep on giving.
I just hate to see the bad spin that I see from magazines that I subscribe to like MJ, The Nation and American Prospect. Indeed, since my mother's death in 2007 I have been distracted, but I don't remember seeing anything flattering of her in any of them.

It would be very informative to have the money spent by each of the candidates in the various primaries. Had people known how extravagant the funds laid out in Iowa by the Obama staff were, the results would have been seen in a very different light indeed.

If nothing succeed as failure, as you said, how comes Obama raised $50 million in the same time frame, which is $15 million more than Hillary?

If nothing succeed as failure, as you said, how comes Obama raised $50 million in the same time frame, which is $15 million more than Hillary?