In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 10 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote: This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people".
They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook.
I would agree that the sad part is there are plenty of legitimate issues to run on but they don't, but this is the political game. It is similar to everyone complaining about polarization and partisanship, but few admit that it persists for the simple reason that it is good for business and both parties have made handsome gains by increasing partisanship more than ever.
On September 10 2014 05:04 Danglars wrote: Reid doesn't have the votes. He is an actor in the political theatre playing the defender of the masses against the evil spending power of rich individuals and corporations of individuals. Democrats got some good play from Citizens, but I don't think he can ride a class struggle story to votes in November. First amendment rights to run ads and support candidates cannot be abridged in this manner (and I echo the reasoning behind majority opinion connecting these, if interested individuals want to read on supremecourt.gov), not notwithstanding the specious reasoning that other's voices cannot be heard as a result.
As a republican shouldn't you be for citizen's rights and against corporation's rights because these are a special class above citizens? If CU should stay, what would you do to fix the extreme imbalance of power between multinational corps and the american people?
The idea behind the status quo is that American corporations are extensions of the American people. To take power from one is to take power from the other.
tish and pish, this doesn't make much sense on its own. where's the second half of your argument? stand and deliver!
tish and pish, this doesn't make much sense on its own. where's the second half of your argument? stand and deliver!
oh, the insolence!
whose idea is this? and what are the implications of it for the status quo? are there any at all, or is it a case of a confused sycophant mistaking an absurdity for a justification?
i demand you explain yourself. furthermore i demand that you stop the sass, so help me God.
On September 10 2014 05:04 Danglars wrote: Reid doesn't have the votes. He is an actor in the political theatre playing the defender of the masses against the evil spending power of rich individuals and corporations of individuals. Democrats got some good play from Citizens, but I don't think he can ride a class struggle story to votes in November. First amendment rights to run ads and support candidates cannot be abridged in this manner (and I echo the reasoning behind majority opinion connecting these, if interested individuals want to read on supremecourt.gov), not notwithstanding the specious reasoning that other's voices cannot be heard as a result.
As a republican shouldn't you be for citizen's rights and against corporation's rights because these are a special class above citizens? If CU should stay, what would you do to fix the extreme imbalance of power between multinational corps and the american people?
The idea behind the status quo is that American corporations are extensions of the American people. To take power from one is to take power from the other.
tish and pish, this doesn't make much sense on its own. where's the second half of your argument? stand and deliver!
tish and pish, this doesn't make much sense on its own. where's the second half of your argument? stand and deliver!
oh, the insolence!
whose idea is this? and what are the implications of it for the status quo? are there any at all, or is it a case of a confused sycophant mistaking an absurdity for a justification?
i demand you explain yourself. furthermore i demand that you stop the sass, so help me God.
No one owns the idea. There are no new implications.
If you want better answers, than ask better questions
On September 10 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote: This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people".
They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook.
I would agree that the sad part is there are plenty of legitimate issues to run on but they don't, but this is the political game. It is similar to everyone complaining about polarization and partisanship, but few admit that it persists for the simple reason that it is good for business and both parties have made handsome gains by increasing partisanship more than ever.
While it's true that both parties benefit from corporate donations, Republicans benefit far more than Democrats. During the 2012 federal elections, Super PACs raised $406.8 million for conservatives, and $195.5 million for liberals.
Source So yes, Democrats actually would love to curb Super PAC donations, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.
And what does all this money buy for corporations and other special interest groups?
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
It blows my mind that some conservatives claim this is a good thing. At least have the honesty to admit that you are in favor of unlimited corporate donations because such donations disproportionately favor Republicans, not because they are in any way good for the country.
On September 10 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote: This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people".
They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook.
I would agree that the sad part is there are plenty of legitimate issues to run on but they don't, but this is the political game. It is similar to everyone complaining about polarization and partisanship, but few admit that it persists for the simple reason that it is good for business and both parties have made handsome gains by increasing partisanship more than ever.
While it's true that both parties benefit from corporate donations, Republicans benefit far more than Democrats. During the 2012 federal elections, Super PACs raised $406.8 million for conservatives, and $195.5 million for liberals.
Source So yes, Democrats actually would love to curb Super PAC donations, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.
And what does all this money buy for corporations and other special interest groups?
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
It blows my mind that some conservatives claim this is a good thing. At least have the honesty to admit that you are in favor of unlimited corporate donations because such donations disproportionately favor Republicans, not because they are in any way good for the country.
No you don't get it. Unlimited corporate donations prevent majoritarian rule. It's what the founding fathers intended.
On September 10 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote: This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people".
They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook.
I would agree that the sad part is there are plenty of legitimate issues to run on but they don't, but this is the political game. It is similar to everyone complaining about polarization and partisanship, but few admit that it persists for the simple reason that it is good for business and both parties have made handsome gains by increasing partisanship more than ever.
While it's true that both parties benefit from corporate donations, Republicans benefit far more than Democrats. During the 2012 federal elections, Super PACs raised $406.8 million for conservatives, and $195.5 million for liberals.
Source So yes, Democrats actually would love to curb Super PAC donations, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.
And what does all this money buy for corporations and other special interest groups?
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
It blows my mind that some conservatives claim this is a good thing. At least have the honesty to admit that you are in favor of unlimited corporate donations because such donations disproportionately favor Republicans, not because they are in any way good for the country.
Compare 2008 to 2012. Though the low 2008 numbers for McCain could just have been the Obama effect, and the fact that MCcain was a crappy candidate.
It's almost like you could argue that now, if money=votes, that it's more fair than in 2008! I suspect the union aspect (as well as the emergence of conservative super PACs) is the political reason that the Democrats bluster so uselessly.
And of course this amendment was going nowhere- pure political theater. For all the whining about the useless "repeal Obamacare votes" (which were, in fact, useless) I find it fascinating that now the Democrats undertake a similar task.
By the way, Salon had an article a few months ago criticizing an earlier version of the amendment, and it seems this new version shares the same downfalls. In my opinion, the most important one is the media exemption, as well as the potential damage to that one aspect of the First Amendment.
On September 10 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote: This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people".
They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook.
I would agree that the sad part is there are plenty of legitimate issues to run on but they don't, but this is the political game. It is similar to everyone complaining about polarization and partisanship, but few admit that it persists for the simple reason that it is good for business and both parties have made handsome gains by increasing partisanship more than ever.
While it's true that both parties benefit from corporate donations, Republicans benefit far more than Democrats. During the 2012 federal elections, Super PACs raised $406.8 million for conservatives, and $195.5 million for liberals.
Source So yes, Democrats actually would love to curb Super PAC donations, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.
And what does all this money buy for corporations and other special interest groups?
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
It blows my mind that some conservatives claim this is a good thing. At least have the honesty to admit that you are in favor of unlimited corporate donations because such donations disproportionately favor Republicans, not because they are in any way good for the country.
Isn't it spending and not donations?
I don't understand what distinction you're trying to get at. Maybe bribes is an even better term : )
On September 10 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote: This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people".
They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook.
I would agree that the sad part is there are plenty of legitimate issues to run on but they don't, but this is the political game. It is similar to everyone complaining about polarization and partisanship, but few admit that it persists for the simple reason that it is good for business and both parties have made handsome gains by increasing partisanship more than ever.
While it's true that both parties benefit from corporate donations, Republicans benefit far more than Democrats. During the 2012 federal elections, Super PACs raised $406.8 million for conservatives, and $195.5 million for liberals.
Source So yes, Democrats actually would love to curb Super PAC donations, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.
And what does all this money buy for corporations and other special interest groups?
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
It blows my mind that some conservatives claim this is a good thing. At least have the honesty to admit that you are in favor of unlimited corporate donations because such donations disproportionately favor Republicans, not because they are in any way good for the country.
Isn't it spending and not donations?
I don't understand what distinction you're trying to get at. Maybe bribes is an even better term : )
Donations are limited... you can't donate an unlimited amount to a candidate.
On September 10 2014 10:07 Introvert wrote: The effect of the decision has been to counter-act the influence of unions, which are major players in terms of money and mobilization. It's basically evened the gap from a large democrat expenditure lead in 2008, to making it more even.
Compare 2008 to 2012. Though the low 2008 numbers for McCain could just have been the Obama effect, and the fact that MCcain was a crappy candidate.
It's almost like you could argue that now, if money=votes, that it's more fair than in 2008! I suspect the union aspect (as well as the emergence of conservative super PACs) is the political reason that the Democrats bluster so uselessly.
And of course this amendment was going nowhere- pure political theater. For all the whining about the useless "repeal Obamacare votes" (which were, in fact, useless) I find it fascinating that now the Democrats undertake a similar task.
By the way, Salon had an article a few months ago criticizing an earlier version of the amendment, and it seems this new version shares the same downfalls. In my opinion, the most important one is the media exemption, as well as the potential damage to that one aspect of the First Amendment.
Your theory doesn't seem to hold up if you look at the 2004 or any earlier elections. Maybe Obama is just a better fundraiser than McCain. Maybe modest limits on donations per voter were the problem. It's almost like there are fewer republicans willing to contribute.
On September 10 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote: This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people".
They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook.
I would agree that the sad part is there are plenty of legitimate issues to run on but they don't, but this is the political game. It is similar to everyone complaining about polarization and partisanship, but few admit that it persists for the simple reason that it is good for business and both parties have made handsome gains by increasing partisanship more than ever.
While it's true that both parties benefit from corporate donations, Republicans benefit far more than Democrats. During the 2012 federal elections, Super PACs raised $406.8 million for conservatives, and $195.5 million for liberals.
Source So yes, Democrats actually would love to curb Super PAC donations, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.
And what does all this money buy for corporations and other special interest groups?
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
It blows my mind that some conservatives claim this is a good thing. At least have the honesty to admit that you are in favor of unlimited corporate donations because such donations disproportionately favor Republicans, not because they are in any way good for the country.
Isn't it spending and not donations?
I don't understand what distinction you're trying to get at. Maybe bribes is an even better term : )
Donations are limited... you can't donate an unlimited amount to a candidate.
Yeah and PAC's (usually run by a candidates close friend/associate) and the candidate can't 'coordinate', which spawns things like #McConneling.
Guess I am a bit torn between the entertainment value and the damage the clear corruption causes.
Our campaign laws are a tragic comedy as are the attempts to feed the lie that it's significant problem is that wealthy people/corporations are getting unfairly shut out...
On September 10 2014 10:07 Introvert wrote: The effect of the decision has been to counter-act the influence of unions, which are major players in terms of money and mobilization. It's basically evened the gap from a large democrat expenditure lead in 2008, to making it more even.
Compare 2008 to 2012. Though the low 2008 numbers for McCain could just have been the Obama effect, and the fact that MCcain was a crappy candidate.
It's almost like you could argue that now, if money=votes, that it's more fair than in 2008! I suspect the union aspect (as well as the emergence of conservative super PACs) is the political reason that the Democrats bluster so uselessly.
And of course this amendment was going nowhere- pure political theater. For all the whining about the useless "repeal Obamacare votes" (which were, in fact, useless) I find it fascinating that now the Democrats undertake a similar task.
By the way, Salon had an article a few months ago criticizing an earlier version of the amendment, and it seems this new version shares the same downfalls. In my opinion, the most important one is the media exemption, as well as the potential damage to that one aspect of the First Amendment.
Your theory doesn't seem to hold up if you look at the 2004 or any earlier elections. Maybe Obama is just a better fundraiser than McCain. Maybe modest limits on donations per voter were the problem. It's almost like there are fewer republicans willing to contribute.
I saw the older data, which is why I offered my alternate explanation(s).
I suppose you could make the argument that, given the evenness or disparity of other elections, this super-PAC issue really hasn't turned it too terribly for one side or the other. Sure it's more money overall, but when you compare % differences in spending between candidates over the years, it really isn't so lopsided. 2008 was by far the most one-sided in recent memory (over 2-1!), and that was before Citizens United.
I mean if you are fine with a small group of individuals buying the equivalent votes of a much larger group of people I guess you can call that "even".
Union spending "pales in comparison to right-wing corporate interests," said Brian Weeks, political director for the 1.6-million member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "It's not even close. And let's be honest -- when they're talking about union money, they're talking about our members -- librarians, snow plow drivers, park rangers."
The full scope of business spending on politics is impossible to quantify. If corporations and executives were required to comply by the disclosures that unions do, there would likely be billions more in political and lobbying expenses in their names. All union spending is already known.
Labor's $600 million still trails a number of business sectors when they are broken out individually. The most powerful business sector is finance, insurance and real estate, which spent $1.9 billion on federal lobbying, and on federal and state contributions in 2012 elections.
On September 10 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote: This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people".
They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook.
I would agree that the sad part is there are plenty of legitimate issues to run on but they don't, but this is the political game. It is similar to everyone complaining about polarization and partisanship, but few admit that it persists for the simple reason that it is good for business and both parties have made handsome gains by increasing partisanship more than ever.
While it's true that both parties benefit from corporate donations, Republicans benefit far more than Democrats. During the 2012 federal elections, Super PACs raised $406.8 million for conservatives, and $195.5 million for liberals.
Source So yes, Democrats actually would love to curb Super PAC donations, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.
And what does all this money buy for corporations and other special interest groups?
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
It blows my mind that some conservatives claim this is a good thing. At least have the honesty to admit that you are in favor of unlimited corporate donations because such donations disproportionately favor Republicans, not because they are in any way good for the country.
A lot of these people are right-wing, not necessarily conservative or Republican. They have a sentimental interest in seeing more social hierarchy than less.
Union spending "pales in comparison to right-wing corporate interests," said Brian Weeks, political director for the 1.6-million member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "It's not even close. And let's be honest -- when they're talking about union money, they're talking about our members -- librarians, snow plow drivers, park rangers."
The full scope of business spending on politics is impossible to quantify. If corporations and executives were required to comply by the disclosures that unions do, there would likely be billions more in political and lobbying expenses in their names. All union spending is already known.
Labor's $600 million still trails a number of business sectors when they are broken out individually. The most powerful business sector is finance, insurance and real estate, which spent $1.9 billion on federal lobbying, and on federal and state contributions in 2012 elections.
Yes, couter-act. See what it was before CU? (Though years before that were different. They just really wanted Obama- it showed their potential. Also, labor reporting laws have changed).
But what cannot be understated, is, as I said, the organizing power. They run massive get out the vote campaigns, though I'm having trouble finding precise data.
But in your article, this is alluded to:
Jeff Hauser, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO labor federation, said labor unions serve as a political counterweight to the Koch brothers and other business lobbies, but only in terms of grassroots reach. When it comes to pure finances, organized labor is "dwarfed" by business, Hauser said.
I know that in California, the California Teachers Association (among others) spends millions on state races, which means that those voters will likely also vote for the federal offices on the ballot. But I'm having trouble finding state by state data on this.
But it's been recognized that, until recently, unions have been very effective tools for the Democrat party- that part is not deniable.
Elections are about more than just cash.
But yes, nowadays CU has really hurt the union effectiveness (though not entirely).
Edit: I just don't think they have little influence. Money is not everything, and the unions have GOTV systems down to a science. Nevermind the impact of local/state unions on local/state elections, e.g., CTA.
Unions represent the majority of a corporation's employees where they exist. It shouldn't be strange that they also have a large impact on elections. What is strange how little of an impact they have relative to a small number of rich individuals.
On September 10 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote: This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people".
They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook.
I would agree that the sad part is there are plenty of legitimate issues to run on but they don't, but this is the political game. It is similar to everyone complaining about polarization and partisanship, but few admit that it persists for the simple reason that it is good for business and both parties have made handsome gains by increasing partisanship more than ever.
While it's true that both parties benefit from corporate donations, Republicans benefit far more than Democrats. During the 2012 federal elections, Super PACs raised $406.8 million for conservatives, and $195.5 million for liberals.
Source So yes, Democrats actually would love to curb Super PAC donations, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.
And what does all this money buy for corporations and other special interest groups?
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
It blows my mind that some conservatives claim this is a good thing. At least have the honesty to admit that you are in favor of unlimited corporate donations because such donations disproportionately favor Republicans, not because they are in any way good for the country.
Isn't it spending and not donations?
I don't understand what distinction you're trying to get at. Maybe bribes is an even better term : )
Donations are limited... you can't donate an unlimited amount to a candidate.
Yeah and PAC's (usually run by a candidates close friend/associate) and the candidate can't 'coordinate', which spawns things like #McConneling.
Guess I am a bit torn between the entertainment value and the damage the clear corruption causes.
Our campaign laws are a tragic comedy as are the attempts to feed the lie that it's significant problem is that wealthy people/corporations are getting unfairly shut out...
Yes they're not supposed to coordinate, because that would be too close to an actual donation.
Who is saying that wealthy people are unfairly shut out?
On September 10 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote: This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people".
They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook.
I would agree that the sad part is there are plenty of legitimate issues to run on but they don't, but this is the political game. It is similar to everyone complaining about polarization and partisanship, but few admit that it persists for the simple reason that it is good for business and both parties have made handsome gains by increasing partisanship more than ever.
While it's true that both parties benefit from corporate donations, Republicans benefit far more than Democrats. During the 2012 federal elections, Super PACs raised $406.8 million for conservatives, and $195.5 million for liberals.
Source So yes, Democrats actually would love to curb Super PAC donations, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else.
And what does all this money buy for corporations and other special interest groups?
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
It blows my mind that some conservatives claim this is a good thing. At least have the honesty to admit that you are in favor of unlimited corporate donations because such donations disproportionately favor Republicans, not because they are in any way good for the country.
Isn't it spending and not donations?
I don't understand what distinction you're trying to get at. Maybe bribes is an even better term : )
Donations are limited... you can't donate an unlimited amount to a candidate.
Yeah and PAC's (usually run by a candidates close friend/associate) and the candidate can't 'coordinate', which spawns things like #McConneling.
Guess I am a bit torn between the entertainment value and the damage the clear corruption causes.
Our campaign laws are a tragic comedy as are the attempts to feed the lie that it's significant problem is that wealthy people/corporations are getting unfairly shut out...
Yes they're not supposed to coordinate, because that would be too close to an actual donation.
Who is saying that wealthy people are unfairly shut out?
Blows my mind anyone thinks they aren't, but ok.
Are you taking issue with the word choice or the idea that people have been suggesting that many campaign finance law restrictions should be lifted because they infringe on the first amendment of the few who would be 'freed'?.
First amendment rights to run ads and support candidates cannot be abridged in this manner
Because you can just put in whatever words make you feel better instead of "wealthy people are unfairly shut out".
EPT
