I thought maybe I could get most everyone here upset with me

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. Here is what I actually wrote

"I predict that if the Democratic Party fails to find a way of weaning itself from the teets of well heeled donors for political sustenance - it will continue to be viewed with suspicion, if not actual hostility, by an increasing plurality of Americans."

Here is what you wrote:

"Your suggestion to eliminate contributions from rich contributors because enforcing regulations is too difficult penalizes honest contributors because they will be eliminated while dishonest people like the Koch brothers and Wilbur Ross will simply find new avenues of subterfuge.

While there is a basis for regulating and making contributions more transparent there is no constitutionally acceptable way of eliminating it as you wish so its really a waste of time to discuss it."

Nowhere did I suggest seeking unconstitutional measures to eliminate the ability of rich contributors from making political contributions. I did suggest that if the Democratic Party becomes associated with, in the eyes of large sections of the public mind, being overly solicitous to the concerns of the wealthiest sector of our society - that it would ultimately be detrimental to our electoral prospects.

In fact I am puzzled by your choice of words here:

"...because enforcing regulations is too difficult penalizes honest contributors because they will be eliminated while dishonest people like the Koch brothers and Wilbur Ross will simply find new avenues of subterfuge."

Where did I write that enforcing regulations should not be attempted due to excessive difficulty doing so? Your comment sounds like an argument made by the NRA regarding "gun control" - there's nothing wrong with our regulations about guns - we don't need to tighten anything - just enforce the laws on the books and everything will be fine. If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns etc.

And it is the platform of the Democratic Party to seek a constitutional amendment to over ride Citizens United. That would be a constitutional remedy to the Citizens United ruling that four SC Justices and many legal observers believe was contrary to our Constitution. But even leaving all of that aside. I posited a problem that will soon be inflamed in the realm of politics when the public becomes more familiar with the contents of the Paradise Papers. There are political ways to respond to that potential problem. One is to attempt to position the Democratic Party so as to be less dependent of mega donors for survival. That can be pursued in many ways, most of which would not involve having to forbid anything, just reorienting our efforts, close associations and priorities.

You have taken what I wrote and spun it into a political thriller beyond recognition. It's almost like you suppose that my next post will likely propose mandatory political reeducation camps for everyone with wealth exceeding six figures. I see a problem on the horizon, yes I do. I think we need to look at ways to address it, that is true. That is what I proposed discussing. There are many options potentially available to mitigate against what I was warning about. They include options as non threatening to the rights of progressive wealthy donors as finding and expanding other funding streams that make it easier for Democrats to pick and choose more carefully who we seek to aggressively court for major contributions.

If you don't see any risk associated with the status quo for Democrats it makes sense to me that you see no need to explore how it can be altered to reduce that political risk. If you do, however, then that is a topic I hoped to calmly explore by posting the above piece.