<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="0.92" xml:base="http://www.publicampaign.org">
<channel>
 <title>Public Campaign - Geographic Diversity - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/aotm/geography</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Geographic Diversity&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Geographic Diversity</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/aotm/geography</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;+2&quot; color=&quot;#990000&quot;&gt;Rural versus Urban&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;+2&quot; color=&quot;#990000&quot;&gt;&lt;font size=&quot;2&quot; color=&quot;#000000&quot;&gt;While all the candidates collected more of their contributions from urban areas, Clean Elections candidates received 1.5 times as much, proportionately, from zip codes with higher rural populations—15.7 percent of their contributions, versus 10.5 percent. The state’s most urban areas, in contrast, were the source of 66.9 percent of privately funded candidates’ big contributions versus 50.5 percent of Clean Elections candidates’ qualifying contributions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;table border=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;100%&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;   &lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;     &lt;td&gt;&lt;a rel=&quot;lightbox&quot; href=&quot;/files/images/aotm/aotm_figure017_724.png&quot;&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: center&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;/files/images/aotm/aotm_figure017_450.png&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;   &lt;/tr&gt; &lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 13:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
