by Evie Stone

Goooooood morning.

It's all about the Benjamins today, with looks at campaign fundraising from the WP, NYT, and McClatchy. The Times partially debunks the Obama campaign theme (and public-financing sidestep rationalization) of reliance on small donors. While a huge percentage of Obama's donations are less than $100, about a third of his haul came in chunks of $1000 or more. Which is really more math than news (he has, after all, raised $340 million...that would be a lot of $100 checks), but nonetheless is worth noting. The NYT adds that Obama is relying on a familiar cast of characters to gather his larger donations:

Despite his reputation as a newcomer, many of his bundlers are Democratic Party stalwarts, including people who were some of the top fund-raisers for Senator John Kerry in 2004. At least 58 of them appear to have personally made more than $100,000 in contributions to federal candidates and committees over the last decade. Updated bundler lists released recently by the McCain and Obama campaigns show that they have similar numbers of high-dollar fund-raisers.

Combine the big bundlers and the small donors and you've got a pretty powerful fundraising force.

Elsewhere, McClatchy adds to the growing snowball about the seemingly-outsized donations to McCain and the RNC from a Hess office manager and her husband. And the Post takes a closer look at one McCain bundler who seems to be raising money from unlikely sources.

 

Some of the most prolific givers in Sargeant's network live in modest homes in Southern California's Inland Empire. Most had never given a political contribution before being contacted by Sargeant or his associates. Most said they have never voiced much interest in politics. And in several instances, they had never registered to vote. And yet, records show, some families have ponied up as much as $18,400 for various candidates between December and March.

Neither McClatchy nor the Post turned up anything illegal in their investigations. But you can be sure that their investigative units — and many others — will continue to dig into donor records from both campaigns.

The candidates themselves are still talking about energy policy. After days of openly mocking Obama for the suggestion (with props courtesy of the RNC), McCain seemed to acknowledge at a town hall in Pennsylvania last night that properly-inflated tires do actually help save gas. (Politifact agrees.) McCain went on to caution "I...don't think that that is a way to become energy independent." Well, neither does Obama, whose plan includes a range of other elements as well. So you're both on the same page with that then? Good.

But if Obama's tire claim wasn't over-inflated, there's still some hot air in his new energy plan. The WP's editorial board takes him to task this morning for two elements of the plan that it deems gimmicky: releasing oil from the strategic reserve and the so-called "windfall profits tax" on oil companies.

On the oil reserve:

[A]ny relief from Mr. Obama's plan would be temporary while compromising a reserve intended to protect against disruptions in supply caused by wars, boycotts and the like.

On the windfall profits tax:

Indeed, some of Big Oil's "windfall" already will go to the government: The more profit the companies earn, the more corporate income tax they pay. But to add a five-year tax increase on top of that to pay for a one-year gift to voters would, indeed, increase the cost of doing business. That cost would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump — thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help. If oil prices fall, there might be no windfall profits to tax. Then the Obama rebate would have to be paid for through spending cuts, taxes on something else or borrowing.

And finally, a new DNC gambit linking John McCain to the oil companies: Exxon-McCain 2008.