Has no one here actually read the quoted language? The article quotes MoveOn.org. out of context, and this thread perpetuates the logical error. Soros never said that he owned the DNC, and MoveOn never said that either.
The actual quote reads:
"In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."
(my emphasis added)
Source: Gunga's source
All this is saying is that grassroots contributors LIKE
MoveOn.org gave $300M, and thus that grassroots contributors
own the DNC, not that MoveOn.org (or Soros, by extension) specifically owns the DNC. Read the language -- the "our" and "we" is a reference to "grassroots contributors" in general, not to either MoveOn.org or Soros specifically, nor is Soros ever mentioned. It would be ridiculous to allege that MoveOn.org, alone, gave that amount of money to Kerry's campaign, and thus a common sense reading of this language should caution against such a silly inference. $300M is the entirety of Kerry's campaign funding. See http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp?sort=E.
Moreover, the figures cited for Soros' contributions are also misleading. Soros did not, and could, actually contribute $18M to either the Kerry campaign or the DNC . He may have spent that much on democratic activism, but not directly through contributions to the DNC or Kerry's campaign, both of which cannot legally accept that quantity of money. See the above url for Soros' actual contributions and for real info on the 2004 presidential contributions. While you're there, take a look at the largest contributors of all time. Should we conclude that the National Association of Realtors controls America (no. 2 of all time)? They gave more than even the inflated figures given for Soros. But claiming that the National Association of Realtors owns, or claims to own, the United States or either political party would be pure nonsense -- a conspiracy theory about a "Shadow Party" that simply doesn't exist. I have the same thoughts about this theory on the ownership or claimed ownership of the DNC.
Look at the facts, and try not to quote out of context. We'll all be better off.