No one would confuse me with a Hillary booster, but if the following is true, the kudos to her.

"This is a tribute to her hard work and the depth of support she's built," said Ann Lewis, communications director for Clinton's campaign. Lewis added that 95 percent of Clinton's contributions were for $100 or less.

Senator Clinton has raised 39 million dollars to this point and has about 20 million in the bank (which can be transferred to an expected presidential campaign...).

Now contrast this with George Will's screed

The "problem" Republicans addressed is that in 2004 Democrats were more successful than Republicans in using so-called 527 organizations -- advocacy groups named after the tax code provision governing them. In 2002 Congress passed the McCain-Feingold legislation banning large "soft money" contributions for parties -- money for issue-advocacy and organizational activities, not for candidates. In 2004, to the surprise of no sensible person and most McCain-Feingold supporters, much of the money -- especially huge contributions from rich liberals -- was diverted to 527s. So on April 5, House Republicans, easily jettisoning what little remains of their ballast of belief in freedom and limited government, voted to severely limit the amounts that can be given to 527s.

Perhaps its as confusing for you as it was for me--a conservative criticizing Republican action on a McCain-Feingold loophole allowing rich liberals to contribute--as in the case of George Soros--as much as 25 million dollars? Actually Will is using the recent Congressional action on 527s to criticize McCain-Feingold, which enjoyed bi-partisan support, but for which Will insists the current Republican majority should be punished.

The 211 Republicans who voted for big-government regulation of speech will have no principled objection. How many principled Republicans remain? Only 18. The following, who voted against restricting 527s:

Roscoe Bartlett (Maryland), Chris Chocola (Indiana), Jeff Flake (Arizona), Vito Fossella (New York), Trent Franks (Arizona), Scott Garrett (New Jersey), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Ernest Istook (Oklahoma), Walter Jones (North Carolina), Steve King (Iowa), Connie Mack (Florida), Cathy McMorris (Washington), Randy Neugebauer (Texas), Ron Paul (Texas), Mike Pence (Indiana), John Shadegg (Arizona) and Lynn Westmoreland (Georgia).

On this remnant of libertarian, limited-government conservatism a future House majority can be built. The current majority forfeited its raison d'etre April 5.

George Will--ever the example of reasoned conservatism, has of late been experimenting with an "angry right" persona. I think he liked being a conservative better when Republicans were a minority party.

But I digress.

What is clear from the Clinton PAC's claim is that political credibility comes a hundred bucks at a time. Why is that? Well lets do the math. 95% of 39 million divided by 100 is about 370,000 individual donations. Now money talks in politics, but votes talk louder and 370,000 people committed enough to Hillary to write her a check for a hundred bucks speaks volumes about her viability as a candidate.

On the other hand, what would the implication be if 25 million of Hillary's stash came from one donor?

If you can answer those questions honesty, you grasp the crux of McCain-Feingold, which hasn't turned out to be the bugaboo it was initially represented as--in a representative form of democracy, the danger is that money will talk louder than actual voters. We see this all the time with how the elite media call the tune on what's news and what isn't--Generals critical of Rumsfeld? News. Generals supportive of Rumsfeld? Not news. Bush leaker in chief? Front page, above the fold. Fitzgerald amends his filing? Page eleven.

Notably, the FEC recently clarified its rules on bloggers and elections and bloggers came out extremely well, because as well as being free speech, its more importantly democratic speech. In other words, we are getting more representative speech within the American polity and I have to think that's a objectively good thing.

Its an obscenity to have George Soros' voice count more by orders of magnitude than anyone elses, yet the practice does have its supporters--notably from those in the minority who have failed to convince the public through argument.

Hillary demonstrates that Democrats can raise significant hard money donations (or appear to, which at minimum concedes the point...). Its tougher than simply making a trip to Hollywood or calling the bagmen, but utlimately I think its better for the party and the country in the long run.