a few numbers and spurious reasoning cut both ways (Score 5, Informative)

The Democratic Party may indeed receive a larger proportion of their contributions from fewer (in number), larger (in dollar amount) donations, from "labor unions, trial lawyers, and the entertainment industry".

But remember, you (and the Center for Responsive Politics study you quote) are talking about Soft Money(tm), not Hard Money. Soft Money can only go to the party's coffers, to be spent on so-called issue advertising, convention costs, get-out-the-vote drives, etc. Soft Money, in its current, near-unrestricted format, CANNOT be given directly to a candidate's campaign.

Hard Money, which is limited to $1000 per donor per candidate, is what Bush and the Republicans generate at all those $1000-per-plate fundraisers. That money goes directly to the re-election campaigns of individual candidates, for them to spend on dirty ads, etc.

Republicans greatly outstrip Democrats in Hard Money donations. That's because there are a lot more Republican-party members on the local level who own/manage car dealerships, real estate agencies, country clubs, restaurants, etc. ... the sort of wealthy community members who have several extra thousand in their checking accounts.

I point you to this article, also from the Center for Responsive Politics which explains the Hard Money/Soft Money difference and the overwhelming advantage the Republicans have with Hard Money fundraising. One quote (article from Nov 2002): "Republicans had raised $289 million in hard money through mid-October, more than twice the Democrats' $127 million"