An interesting article here says the future of politics is online.

The campaign for the Democratic nomination has been long-fought and you would expect to see this reflected in the state of the candidates’ finances, however, Obama has almost $38m in funds available; Clinton has only $6m. Clinton’s debts amount to $10m, Obama’s only $2m.  Given Clinton's formidable fundraising efforts, how are Obama’s finances so much healthier and at this late stage in the campaign?

Unlike Clinton, who is funded by traditional methods, Obama has embraced the opportunities offered by internet and in particular, Facebook and social networking, hiring Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook. Last month, Obama’s campaign raised $31m, most of it online, and 94% of it from small donations of $200 or less ...

Don’t forget, following the loss of the FoI case, the 14 MPs' expenses details are out today. The first details should start filtering through after 4pm ...

Not much longer to wait now. The High Court has decided that the Commons must release the details by next Friday. The Taxpayer’s Alliance has hailed the verdict as a “great victory for democracy, transparency and taxpayers.”

The House of Commons had appealed to the High Court on the grounds that publishing their addresses constitutes a security risk. This is rubbish and was disposed of by the High Court as such. MPs addresses are not secret from us now!

So, the Commons Commission has until 12pm on Tuesday to appeal. Guido reckons this case has already cost the public purse £100,000. Will the Commission have the sense not to waste any further public funds by fighting on?

There is no reason why our MPs should be any different than the rest of us when it comes to claiming expenses from our paymasters. To pursue an appeal would be a mistake that would further damage the reputation of Parliament and politicians.

If you’re concerned about the continuing erosion of civil liberties (and may I suggest that you should be!), you’ll be interested in a case that goes before the High Court today for judicial review. Andrew Wood, a campaigner against the arms trade, is challenging the right of the police to mount surveillance operations at peaceful protests, and whether so-called ‘routine’ intelligence gathering is permissible under the Human Rights Act.

In 2005, Wood attended the AGM of Reed Elsevier, which mixes activities such as publishing academic journals with running arms fairs, in his capacity as shareholder and press officer of the Campaign Against Arms Trade. The Met Police questioned and photographed him along with other members of the public attending the meeting, and admits keeping photographs and notes on file even though there were no arrests.

This case nicely illustrates the fine line between maintaining civil liberties and safeguarding security. The right of the public to take photographs on the street has been in the news recently, with amateur photographers complaining of heavy-handed approaches from police, community police officers and council wardens on the grounds of anti-terrorism measures. Can we argue that we have the right to take photographs as and when we please, but the police don’t?

I think we can. I think there’s a difference. Someone taking photographs on the street is a private individual going about their lawful business – that should be the assumption, at least. Whereas overt surveillance of members of the public – demanding an account of their activities, openly taking repeated photographs, videoing them - by the police seems more like harassment then anything else, because it’s unnecessary. The police have many means available to them to conduct surveillance and by choosing this method they are sending a message that has an aggressive and threatening undertone.