Another reviewer claimed that this should be required reading for all political science students. Although the book and ideas put forth are clear, concise, and powerful, I would only recommend this work to the scholar that is interested in campaign financing. All others would be fine to just read a few articles in Slate or the New York Times on the matter.

The book is basically divided into three sections. The first section (chapters one through eight) deals with "how money corrupts political campaigns," which is fittingly the book's subtitle. Here the author Darrell West, who is a professor at Brown University, addresses this topic wonderfully, providing not only the "how" of money in political campaigns, but also the "who, what, when, and where." Each chapter discusses in detail various incidents that have either led up to the current situation in campaign finances, like the 1976 Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo to among other reforms create the Federal Election Commission, or incidents that have recently contributed to the problem. Illegal financing and sneaky financing are explored from both sides (Democrat and Republican) and this is perhaps the biggest strength of the book.

The chapters include the following topics: The Willie Horton Independent Expenditure, Issue Advocacy and the Christian Action Network, Contribution Limits, Foreign Nationals and the DNC, the Teamsters and the Clinton White House, Big Tobacco and the RNC, and Non-Profits, Foundations, and Tax-Exempt Organizations.

The second part of the book (beginning of chapter 9) deals with why campaign finance is not a hot topic in Washington. The reasons are fairly obvious, but the author does do a nice job of exploring them. The only critique I have is the media factor that West thinks plays into the current system. He argues that journalists make the problem worse by reporting even the slightest campaign blunder, and that this creates cynicism in the public. The cynicism is there because of corruption by many politicians (Clinton, Nixon, et al) and the media's influence is little at best.

The final part of the book (end of chapter 9) is West's suggestions for campaign financing. Reading through the first eight chapters, I was shocked to read about the corruption in campaigns, and kept asking the question of "what can be done?" About fifteen pages is addressed to this question, with West outlining 13 points that could help. The ideas are good; the only problem is that they are mentioned as afterthoughts, when the "what can be done" question really could encompass an entire book. Regardless, this book was a good read, and I do recommmend it to any interested in campaigns.

In Checkbook Democracy: How Money Corrupts Political Campaigns, Darrell West draws upon his many years of experience and expertise as Professor of Political Science and Director of the John Hazen White, Sr., Public Opinion Laboratory at Brown University to write an engaging and challenging expose on how modern politics has become a never ending money chase. Professor West cogently explains why money has become a perniciously corruptive influence on public debate and what an alert citizenry can do to redeem the this sad and endemic state of political affairs in an American democracy. Checkbook Democracy should be manditory reading by all political science students and brought to the immediate attention of every non-specialist general reader with a desire for political and campaign finance reforms.

As a New Englander who is attending school in Rhode Island, I had hoped that this book would provide me with some interesting information on a little-understood political figure making a quite a rise through the ranks of the Democratic Party.

Boy, did I pick the wrong book.

First of all, West has no writing ability whatsoever. His vulgar, crass style is not appreciated and is wholly inappropriate. Frequently laughable, his "prose" disqualifies himself as any sort of an expert on the subject matter.

Second, the book is so fiercely partisan that it is factually incorrect throughout. It appears to this reader that West has little understanding of political issues and even less of how to explain political matters to an audience. This book was little more than preaching to the way-outside-the-mainstream radical leftist crowd. As a political independent, this book was too polarizing to be informative.

Third, there are many things Patrick Kennedy is and an angel is not one of them. How anyone can pretend that Kennedy's long history of reckless behavior is either a coincidence or is otherwise not his fault is foolishly naive. I think there has to come a point where West is going to have to accept that Patrick Kennedy might not be the unfortunate saint he believes him to be.

Bottom line: This was the worst book I have ever read. Where I had hoped to find intelligent, insightful commentary, I found a book that was vulgar and ridiculous with a gaping hole where integrity should be. I cannot imagine a publisher actually deciding to publish this book and I wish Mr. West would learn some manners and writing skills. Note to West: Partisan cheap shots do not equal quality writing outside of Brown University.

I was initially alarmed at the slender length of the book, and had braced myself for choppy reading and hurried accounts. I was glad I kept an open mind, because this book easily surpased all of my content expectations.

West neither massacres nor coddles his subject, and I could actually identify with some of Kennedy's emotions and struggles to define himself. As a college student, I was very impressed that he was in the legislature while finishing up his degree---no easy feat in a state of any size. His personal health led him to identify with the disadvantaged and disempowered.

Tracing his childhood and young adulthood, West shows how the "un-Kennedy" Kennedy emerged to become the chair of the DCCC. For a public figure, Kennedy has managed to keep his life largely private and scandal free. He does not engage in the life style that has created headlines for so many other members of the family.

Although I am more partial to his father's voting record, I respect the niche Kennedy carved out on his own terms and was impressed with the many different things he had accomplished. This book is especially inspirational for young democratic politicians.

This book provides a highly readable account of the Kennedy's political operation. Generally sympathetic to the family, but hard-hitting at times. Good stories from people who have worked for the Kennedys as well as those who have opposed them. The average person would like this book!

"Crosstalk" is a useful compilation of academic papers on communications during the presidential campaign of 1992. The foci are on campaign discourse, public, candidate and media agendas, and voting. I characterize this book as "useful," not "compelling," "engaging," or "stimulating" because it is none of those things. It is not a non-fiction version of "Primary Colors," nor is it a campaign journal like "The Making of the President," or any sort of linear story at all. If you are reading this book, there's a good chance it has been assigned in a class, you are doing research or you are a political scientist yourself. If this is the case, "Crosstalk" is certainly the best academic treatment of its subjects that I have come across thus far.

"Crosstalk" is packed with facts, charts, interviews, endnotes and references. It is meticulous in its methodology. Many of the observations about the 1992 election are useful in observing the current (2000) race.

"Crosstalk's" major shortcoming is that it is unnecessarily dry. A campaign is full of anecdotes, has a natural story line, and many dramatic moments. There's no reason, except possible maintaining academic propriety, that the book needs to read like a biological journal. The human element is injected through interviews with voters, but the effect comes across like the voters are specimens. They come off as amusingly ignorant.

But "Crosstalk" is not about narrative. It's about political science. And it serves its purpose well. While "Crosstalk" may not make the short list of political pleasure readings, it should be right up there as a source for academic purposes.