The tone of the argument is generally constructive. While the author implies a clear conflict -- in this situation the basic class warfare argument -- the author proposes constructive resolutions to the issue, such as the passage of new laws governing campaign finance. Because the call to action is aimed at all parties, there is little in the way of disruptive tone, save for disruption to the status quo, which is argued to be a threat.
There is also an element of group and cultural influence in the argument. The author takes care to otherize the threat as being that of "foreign" influence, a clear device used to galvanize those in support of the author's proposals as American. This stretch of the truth -- the vast majority of campaign financing comes from American sources -- is used specifically to invoke America's culture...
By enlarging the group, the author seeks to break down the internal barriers on what is to some extent a partisan issue. This in part serves to bolster the confidence of those who share the author's view and encourage those who may be undecided that it is acceptable to change their minds and side with the author on this issue.
All told, the argument is fairly strong and well-constructed. The persuasive purpose is to call readers to action to support political action, in particular with
respect to a specific bill that is being proposed. The author uses some data, but relies mainly on
rhetoric and implied or hypothetical evidence to support the case, but does so in an effective manner. Even the use of hypothetical evidence is an effective device in this argument, because the argument relates to an information vacuum and the dangers thereof. If perfect information was available with which the author could make his or her case, then this would undermine the information vacuum element of the argument.
