Presidential candidates are being asked more questions about the ties between the money they take for their campaigns and the decision they'll make in office. As a result, several candidates have taken public stances against traditional big money fundraising, and against lobbyist money. Keep reading for the latest from candidates John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich on the subject.

You'd need a pretty big stage to accommodate all the candidates for President, so it's no surprise that the fiercely competitive primary battle is attracting more money that ever before and the traditional big money players are giving big. One industry in particular is upping their ante for this cycle: securities and investment. Why, oh why, would that be?

Hey, I know Washington is a small town and all but certainly a Representative under fire for his ties to Jack Abramoff can steer clear of a fundraiser hosted by one of the convicted lobbyists former protegees. Todd Boulanger, formerly an associate of Abramoff, is hosting a $500/plate fundraiser for Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), who was on the Scottish golfing trip with Abramoff.

Michael Dobbs, the "Fact Checker" at the Washington Post devotes today's column to further parsing the assertions of presidential candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards that they would not take money from federal lobbyists. A previous discussion of this topic set off quite a debate among his readers; and he digs into an exploration of where the line is between a donation rooted in conviction, and one rooted in access-buying.

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has called a special session of the Maryland legislature and in so doing has set off a debate about the propriety of legislators holding fundraisers which involve stakeholders in the legislation they're debating. Holding fundraisers during a special session is legal -- but is it ethical?

Fundraising is banned during normal sessions:

Bret Matthew in his opinion column for the Brandeis Hoot, "The Book of Matthew" (ha) paints a bleak portrait of the modern campaign for public office, and touts Clean Elections as the answer to an electoral process plagued by the buying and selling of influence.

He imagines the evolution of a young candidate who, in order to play the game and win office must become indebted to corporate interests and other sources of big campaign checks:

Here's what happens on Capitol Hill when you change the rules but not the game: a bunch of lobbyists and their legal advisors get together to hammer out a policy on tuna sandwiches. As new lobbying regulations go in to effect cutting into the lavish dinners and other events lobbyists had previously held to woo members of Congress, they're putting their heads together to find all the loopholes.

From the Department of Will They Never Learn? we get this little item: Rep. John Doolittle has disclosed $45,000 in payments to his wife, Julie, in the last quarter for "fundraising work." Incidentally, Doolittle's fundraising has faltered recently due to the investigation surrounding his relationship with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and his fundraising activities -- including the commission system he worked out with his wife.

In response to an article on the Washington Post on Republican presidential candidates turning down invitations to speak to Hispanic and African-American audiences, Public Campaign President and CEO Nick Nyhart, and George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton sent this letter to the Post speculating on the reason those invitations were turned down. Read on for the full text.

There's a new bonus in store for high-dollar donors to presidential campaigns: suspicion. Loath to unearth another Norman Hsu on their donor rolls, campaigns are gearing up efforts to research their donors and evaluate their motives for giving.