It's not just corporate media blackout of John Edwards.
It's also a big money blackout, and it's just as bad.
Maybe even worse.
(Note: The figures in this diary are from the Q307 Federal Elections Commission filing. Numbers for CY07 should be available in the next couple of of weeks.)
In the 2008 fundraising battle, Hillary Clinton has outpaced John Edwards by $60 million and Barack Obama has outraised him by $50 million.
Edwards' fundraising disadvantage has served as a muzzle, depriving him of the dollars he needs to compete throughout the country. In Iowa and New Hampshire he was heavily outspent; in Nevada, where Hillary and Obama took over the airwaves (with an assist from Ron Paul) it was as if John Edwards didn't even exist.
In short, it's the big money blackout of John Edwards.
It's not just Hillary. It's Obama, too.
Edwards trails Obama by $50 million.
As with Hillary, most of the gap is from big money donors, even though Obama has raised more than twice as much as Edwards from small donors.
Combined, Hillary and Obama have a $110 million fundraising advantage over John Edwards.
$90 million of that comes from big donors.
Among small donors, just $789,000 separates John Edwards from Hillary Clinton. Yet among big donors, the gap is $57 million.
In effect, a relative handful of big donors has drowned out the voices of small donors who simply cannot afford to donate one thousand or two thousand -- let alone $4,600 -- to a Presidential campaign.
Out of all the presidential candidates, John Edwards ranks sixth in fundraising. Three Republicans -- McCain, Giuliani, and Romney -- have outraised him.
Despite the fact that these three Republicans have collectively outraised John Edwards by about $50 million, Edwards has raised more money than each of them from small donors.
It's the big donors that give them a bigger voice than Edwards.
Even though I might be jealous, I don't begrudge Hillary or Obama for having the support that they do amongst big donors.
I'm not asking them to tie their hands behind their backs.
Given their access to financial resources, they would have been crazy to participate in the hopelessly inadequate pubic financing system, which is proving itself to be even less useful than originally promised.
Even though Edwards and Clinton raised about the same amount of money from small donors, big donors have overwhelmingly favored her.
That's hardly surprising. She's a sitting United States Senator and as such, has more power than John Edwards. She's got a better fundraising network.
The same is true for Barack Obama.
As a result, Clinton and Obama have received 88% of big dollar donations. Just 12% have gone to John Edwards.
A lot of you who will be reading this have already donated money to John Edwards, just as I have. Perhaps you are one of the relatively few big donors to John Edwards.
Whatever the case, it's become very clear that is that there are precious few big donors who are enamored of a populist message.
Meanwhile, there are are plenty of big donors that like corporate-friendly messages, and to those candidates they offer their support aggressively and often.
As a result, my voice is has been blacked out.
Your voice is been blacked out.
It makes me angry.
We've still got freedom of speech.
We've still got the first amendment.
But even if we have all the freedom in the world, if we don't have a voice -- it's not enough.