I agree with you in general, but I'd like to point out that it does not matter if someone gives to one party or both. It does matter if the party (or the President or the Congresscritter) gives something in return for the donation. It's not the donation. It's the quid pro quo.
Clinton was for sale and from what I see of Bush, he is not. He's not as principled or conservative as I'd like, but there is no evidence of corruption on his part.
When Senator Hollings was ranting that he was insulted by getting smaller donations than some members of his committee, what he was really crying about (in all likelihood) was that he sold himself too cheaply.
Good points, but, again, I think we should just stick to what we know is true rather than trying to spread around a lot of BS - the truth is plenty, and, ultimately, it's the right thing to do, if nothing else, we should stick to our principles. As to the quid pro quo, I always find it amusing when ANY business, especially energy, or pro-business interest group donates to anyone on the left. They certainly don't share common philosophies so why are they getting money from Enron, GC, Loral, whoever, if not for preferential treatment/access? You don't see trial lawyers, environmental groups and unions giving this kind of money to Republicans do you? Seems to be a fairly narrow phenomenon with Big Business and Dems, anyone have any thoughts as to why? You don't see the NRA donating to gun-grabbers, pro-lifers donating to pro-choicers (and vice versa), anti-tax crusaders donating to socialists and so on. Just Big Business in bed with anyone who wants to sleep with 'em - Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians (all one of him) who ARE philosphically aligned with them and Liberal Dems who, clearly, are not...
(By the way, Badray, liked the jab at Fritz, well done!)