And my irritation stemmed from the netroots making an early endorsement in a contested race between equally qualified progressive candidates. My remarks were less about taking sides than they were protesting the process and the wisdom of such a move.

I’m not surprised that some have chosen to make more out my comments than were there, but good luck hanging any of these “facts” around anyone’s neck come next fall.

This is a minor squabble early on in a long primary contest. If Mr. Brodkorb wants to get all worked up every time we have one of these spats, he’ll run out of exclamation marks and ALL CAPS indignation long before the real election.

I’m not surprised Michael would pounce on what Mark says, but I wonder if he’s actually investigating the supposition, or if it serves his purposes better to report the “fact” that someone is speculating.

And we know how careful Michael is with the facts, which is why this statement is puzzling: “Franken’s campaign may be following the letter of the law, but it doesn’t change the FACT they MAY BE artificially padding his donor base with Minnesotans.” [Emphasis mine.]

How can it be a fact that someone may be doing doing something? Oh, yeah, never mind.

I’m having a hard time understanding how people making small, voluntary donations (why else would they buy a Franken button?) constitute “quickly and artificially pad(ding) his donor base with Minnesotans.” (Yes, she reads and inwardly digests.) It seems this is an artificial teapot tempest.

Noah, referencing your donor outline above, is the full $102 accurate? Does the purchase of a T-shirt qualify fully as a donation, or is there a provision for goods received, i.e., cost/value of the shirt, with the balance constituting the donation? Just askin’.

He can do both at the same time because not all things artificial are illegal. Ciresi and others were giving buttons away which means Franken’s reported numbers next round will be skewed in comparison. The assumption is that Franken is not doing this to raise money because the couple thousand dollars he might raise is not a big deal in the over all landscape. He is doing it only because his current proportion of donations from Minnesota reinforces his image as a carpet bagger that does not represent Minnesotans. If this were not the case he would be charging $2 for buttons when he travels out of state as well.

How can Franken simultaneously follow the letter of the law and yet artificially pad his donor base with Minnesotans?

Feel free to fill in the hidden subtext here. Your thesis rests on the assumption that small contribution amounts are somehow “less real” than larger ones. I understand your argument - I simply disagree.