In 1995 and 1996 the republicans raised about 555 million dollars. The dumbocrats only raised about 222 million. By all means we deserve more than twice as much power. But instead, our turncoat democracy gives them the presidency!

The real campaign reform should count only dollars as votes. Though some whiners might say that that's "undemocratic" (that means, not good for the democrats!) remember - it would make us win. So whenever a liberal talks about their campaign reform tell them they're just afraid of losing.

I like to award a medal to Philip Morris, who in 1996 gave 2.5$ million to the republican national commitee. A true hero, I only wish America had royalty so we'd be able to make him a knight or something.

Won't this whole campaign reform thing just blow over?

Since 1974 Political Action Committee contributions went from $12 and a half million a year to $195 million 1994. At that rate by 2004 elections will be multi-billion-dollar events. Obviously liberals, who consist of streetcorner bums, women, and lazy minorities, won't be able to raise much money. Instead, they'll use their "science" and "facts" and a whole lot of heart-bleeding "let's be nice" crap to get the weak on their side - but that's okay, because with a billion dollars we'll be able to advertise enough to make up for all that. But this is were their diabolical plot comes in - they want to make it impossible for us to raise money. They want to lower the wealthy man, who is obviously superior because he managed to make all that money, they want to lower him to the level of the minorities and the feminazis, with only one pathetic vote. Once we only have the same power of inferior people, democracy will be dead.

What are the statistics?

In 1996 unions (communists) put $35 million into the election process against the $242 million put in by business (us).

Combining both hard and soft money, in 1996 Republicans (us) collected $520 million for their campaigns to the Democrats (communists) $350 million.