Thanks, and you're welcome. It was an interesting exercize. In one sense it's reassuring: Despite the much greater wealth of one party, money isn't buying a clear bias in the electoral results--we tend to stay close to a 50-50 balance.

It's the influence of money after the election--the "access" it buys--that's more worrisome. More so because the results are usually concealed (I can't resist: e.g., like Cheney's secret meetings with campaign contributors from the energy industry).

If large campaign contributions don't have that great an influence in the outcome of elections, can there be any doubt that the money is intended to influence the decisions of elected officials after they're elected? Aren't campaign contributions from corporations bribes in every meaningful sense?

--Robert