Do you see a difference in how the left views/talks about Adelson vs. how they discuss the Koch brothers? My perspective has been that the the left view's the Koch's as much more powerful/influential/controlling/etc. without the racial/religious component. And I think that is very relevant as I get a sense from the tone of this piece that you're implying a racial component to the negative nature of the coverage and the power writers are assuming these donors have over candidates.
Yes, I do see a big difference between coverage of the Koch brothers and the coverage of Adelson. Adelson is a major employer, famously anti-union, who is also notoriously sensitive to taxes. Yet while it's taken for granted on all sides that the Koch brothers give their money for reasons based on domestic issues, it's almost always stated or suggested (usually without much backstopping) that Adelson gives because he seeks war with Iran. As Eli Lake's reporting shows, Adelson—although of course concerned with Israel and foreign policy—has a much more modest agenda than any of his critics are interested in discovering. You'd think that reported fact would influence Adelson's coverage, but apparently not.
Thanks for the Feedback is a recurring feature. Comment on the blog for the chance to have your question answered by David Frum.