not a very well explained story. lots of statements without much backup, a number of statistics and numbers without enough background to make them really meaningful.

This analysis did inform me about the real differences in campaign contributions behind the rhetoric. I wonder why, if PAC money is so insignificant, McCain and Clinton do not take what the author essentially describes as a financially trivial stand against these interests.

Obviously, an extremely biased position regarding Obama's relationship with lobbyists. The author and the Columbia Journalism Review seem to think that anybody who contributes to a candidate's campaign must belong to a special interest group. If that is the case, then, aren't all contributors "special interest groups"? A check of the Opensecrets.org web site does not seem to support such a negatively skewed article.

This is not a good article. It is trying to say individual giving from a working person should be considered as the same as a PAC giving from the same type of work. If Opensecrets.org is the best source of campaign finances, we are in trouble.

Terrible journalism. The headline and the story both claim that Obama is "beholden" to the special interests, but it turns out that he has taken money from "people" who are represented by the lobbyists. There is a great deal of diference. The entire story is distorted.