You raise interesting questions. With emotions and spirits riding so high about prospects for this year's election, it's natural to think of every way you can support a candidate. And the first thing that comes to mind is campaign contributions.

But step back a minute and think about it. Why do we equate money with political participation? Well, because history shows us that the candidate who raises the most money more often than not wins. Ok, that's a fact. But isn't that a sorry state of affairs?

After all, we're not all well enough off to be able to give a "significant campaign contribution." And if we're not, does that mean that our opinion, our voice, should mean less than someone who does have that money?

Our current system is what it is--fueled on money. Indeed, even with Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) impressive fundraising from small donors, the bulk of money going to presidential candidates is still coming in $1,000 plus checks. So I'm not going to tell anybody to hobble themselves by refraining from participating in it. But what I will say is that you may also consider an alternative: full public financing of elections. Under this system, often called "Clean Elections," candidates prove their mettle by collecting a set number of very small (typically $5) contributions. They then receive a grant of public funds to run a competitive campaign. They must agree to take no more private money and to abide by strict spending limits.

This isn't a pipe dream--it's already the law in seven states and two cities, including Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) ran twice under the system. In 2003, on her first day of office she signed a prescription drug discount plan. She said that without Clean Elections,lobbyists would have held their campaign contributions over her head.

"None of that happened," she said, "because special interests had nothing to hold over me. I was lobbied heavily by all sides of this issue. But I was able to create this program based on one and only one variable: the best interests of Arizona's senior citizens."

So, along with thinking about giving campaign contributions and to whom, perhaps you should think about supporting the movement for Clean Elections. Because having the option of full public financing would mean that candidates wouldn't have to rely on big contributions to win.
Finally, a word of disclosure. My day job is with Public Campaign, an organization that works to bring full public financing of elections to all levels of government.

In the last 24 hrs or so the Obama campaign has received $6.5 million in new donations.
In January Clinton loaned $5 million to her own campaign, and today we learn that some senior staffers are forgoing salary.

I think it's over.

I have to share this with people who appreciate it.  My DH, a committed political agnostic if there ever was one, who only voted in 2006 because his wife harangued him, GAVE MONEY TO OBAMA YESTERDAY!  He called me at work and told me.  Absolutely stunning.  Hillary scared the pants off him on Super Tuesday, and he has long sworn he would never vote for McCain because McCain made him stand at attention for two hours at the Academy one year.  I still can't really believe it.

Hey, it's your charity money, I say you can do with it as you wish! Who is president affects everyone, so it's a worthy "charity" for sure.

That being said, I've given up on all political donations, and actually many other donations, because they just send me stuff forever and ever, that far outweighs the paltry sum that I gave them in the first place.  Until I can give decent amounts, I probably won't give any unfortunately.

I also don't appreciate when they sell/give their lists away, like Kerry did with Obama this year.  Not that I wanted to be on Kerry's email list anymore anyway.

were important. Didn't it work for Howard Dean? (I mean at least in the short term anyway).

With that said, I've been really frustrated and upset with how much money has already been spent on this election - how long it's been going on already, and there is still so far to go. So I haven't made a donation to anyone yet. I think that once there is a Democratic nominee, I'll contribute to that cause because the thought of another Republican president gives me the willies (and I think that John McCain is an old hypocrite not a maverick independent as seems to be the label the press is happy to slap on him). I have been thinking about donating to Democracy for America before the nominee is decided however. Goodness knows they call me enough.

But any donation I make will be small - and outside my "charity" budget. I give my big donations to people who need food and housing and medical care.

I'd love to hear more thoughts, but I think we've decided what to do.  I find I tend to get into an either/or mindset, instead of realizing I can do both things I want to do.

My husband and I talked about it last night.  We figured out what amount we would be willing to spend on political contributions in addition to our normal charity budget.  Then, in addition, we're going to take half of our normal charity budget, and use that for political contributions.  The other half will go to normal charities (which tend to change every year, so it's not like we have a set plan we're messing with).

Of that total amount, we're going to give half to the candidate we support now, and then the other half during the general election (hopefully to the same person).  I feel like we're covering all bases that way, and doing our part to get a Democrat, and hopefully our favorite candidate, in office.