I'm not surprised. Now that it's clear who will be the nominee, I wouldn't be shocked if every employee of the Fed donates.

primary yet, nor gone to convention if necessary. Not sure what you meant.

$2,700 as an individual contribution? That's fine. As a private citizen, Brainard can do whatever she wants, up to that contribution limit.

campaign, is to important and relevant right now.

$2,700 is the federal maximum for an individual contribution. Lots of people have capped that, going towards both candidates. That is just not that big of a deal.

A better illustration of the problem is the George Clooney Slush Fund Party. Aggregate donations are a big, big thing. Unlimited PAC donations, another big thing. There are many places to make a good case for campaign finance reform.

A $2,700 donation just isn't one of them, no matter who the person works for.

We must be in different income brackets.

My point is that in terms of campaign finance reform, a maximum individual contribution of $2,700 is basically nothing. clinton makes that much money just by sipping water in front of people at GOldman-Sachs, for perspective. The George Clooney Slush Fund, though several loopholes, collected several hundred times that amount - from a very small number of contributors (because, again, loopholes written with exactly that intent)

I can't afford to dole out $2,700 to a candidate, just as you can't. But I've had that much money in my hands before. i've spent that much money before, too. it's a real number, I can count it out in twenties, if I had it. It's just a few hundred more than a busted-ass used car i'm eyeballing (can't afford it, either, but hey, it's a good price for what it is.) In a landscape where simple viability is determined by tens of millions of dollars, no, $2,700 is not really all that much.

Aim for the big fish, worry about the minnows later, if at all.

Trust me, that person with $2700 HAS influence. Even if it's just looking through a list of donors to see whether or not you are going to bother to take their call.

Only one candidate has made a central plank of his platform Campaign Finance Reform.

And in the scale of campaign finance, that $2,700 is about as meaningful as your $27. Two zeroes ain't nothing to the people receiving the money - it's a lot to you, obviously, but at its destination? people receiving bundled checks worth more than I have ever had in my life, total? You think $2,700 does anything more than put a person on a junk mailer list begging for more? You think it grants access? Christ.

Yeah, Bernie;s the only Candidate who's serious about campaign finance reform. And you'll notice where he's pointing at. it's not people making $2,700 max donations.

There are a lot of bernie supporters who have managed to scrape up more cash than either you or I for the man. he's had to return money to people who overspend the cp. Apparently $27 here and there starts adding up after a while. Are they high rollers with undue influence? I wouldn't say they are. Evidence of financial corruption of our political system? Not hardly.

My point is that the cap for individual donations - $2,700 - is very low, compared to what can be generated through other means and measures. $2,700 and $27 are functionally the same at the scale of cash we're looking at. You're both nobodies.

That's... kind of the point of the move for campaign finance reform, really. When two grand and twenty bucks are equally inconsequential, something's wrong with the system.