How could this possibly happen after the enactment of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill..?!?!

Oh..., that's right!
Like all other window-dressing the congress does, hidden underneath it all is "Job 1" - Incumbent Protection.

At what point do bad policies, flip-flops for political gain, shady fundraising, and blatant immoral and unethical behavior (see wife, first/Keating five) turn your opinion of McCain. You consistently document why he is not as he pretends to be, but you also consistently praise him as a "good man". There is some serious cognitive dissonance going with you.

So, just so I can keep up. Even though critics slammed Obama for backing off his public financing aspirations, because his reasoning about the big, bad 527s was lame, you are saying that there is a loophole in the system that Republicans can exploit. And not only exploit, but the Senator who is running for president that his name on the law, will essentially look the other way while it is exploited because he will benefit (unless the media point this out and there is public outcry, but what are the chances of that happening)? And if I am understanding this correctly, is someone going to point this out to Russ Feingold who said that campaign finance for the general election was not broken, and therefore Obama shouldn't opt out?

I mean, I just can't keep up. What's true and what isn't true? Seriously, which one is it? Does the McCain-Feingold Act fulfill its purpose, or is this election revealing that it will need a lot of work before it can truly have an impact? Are the same critics who were wagging there "know it all" fingers at Obama last week going to acknowledge the weaknesses of the bill? Are we going to try to prevent both Republicans and Democrats from getting donations from big pockets in the future, because currently, both candidates are getting their fill.

That "loophole" MUST be closed NOW. Those who give hundreds of thousands, being mainly big firms, calling same "campaign funds" are Not fooling anyone. Let's call these so-called donations by their true name: BRIBES.

Two words - TERM LIMITS!!!

Kirkbrew - the problem with term limits is that if they are short enough to have real meaning, they hand control of the legislature over to lobbyists. If legislators only revolve in and out of Congress on a short timescale, the storehouse for institutional knowledge (and let's not kid ourselves--we do want a body of 500 some odd *experts* running the legislative arm of the most powerful nation on earth) won't be in the senators and representatives themselves, but in the lobbyists, influencers, and various washington hangers-on who would fill the role of guiding Congress and drafting its legislation even more than they do today. That's not an ideal outcome, and it's something that should be kept in mind in any discussion of term limits.

TRW,

Obama is right, and the system is broken. The WSJ article points out exactly how it is broken. Rich folks and corporations who want to influence the system can do so through these loopholes.

However, my question is whether Obama's campaign can possibly raise more than $84 million for the general election, which only begins after he accepts the nomination at the end of August, i.e. only two full months, September and October. If not, he should have accepted public financing and encouraged donations to the DNC, just as John McCain is doing.

Everyone following this race should note, as the WSJ article and an earlier one have shown, the RNC have a huge ($50M+) advantage in cash on hand over the DNC. Say what you will about Chairman Dean, he needs to raise more money!

thanks..