> False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories. "False equivalence"? I wasn't "equating" anything. The fact that they

> False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories. "False equivalence"? I wasn't "equating" anything. The fact that they are separate categories was the entire point. Namely, that campaign contributions have to (at least in theory) be spent on the campaign, while "speaking fees" are pure slush that can be used for anything the politician desires. > Those private speeches don't buy any more influence than campaign contributions... which is to say rather little for the presidency. Are you seriously arguing that politicians aren't influenced when people give them $400,000 of free money (allegedly for standing in front of a crowd and spouting nonsense for 20 minutes)? Dude, these are politicians, not saints.