Individuals are limited in the amount of their donation to a candidate. However, when individuals give to a , the limit that they can contribute is much more than the individual limit, making these entities more popular with donors and allowing special interest groups to dictate their policy preferences much more effectively.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )

well, i can't read it so i'll ask you questions about it : )

if you were a reader and you read the introduction, would you want to read more?

does it start with a question? if so, is it something you would want to read about?

and ask any friends or family for their opinion : )

answer; education;

answer; reincarnation of an eternal soul;