|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 April 25 2016 14:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:30 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:16 Nebuchad wrote:
Well I just assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics and criticized Citizens United because you believed those corrupting influences played a big enough role in the system to deserve your time and criticism. If you don't, then I would suggest you don't spend that much time arguing against them, cause apparently the corrupting influences are spending an absurd amount of money on trying to influence the political system and are largely failing at it, not getting a whole lot of results for their efforts, so that's a waste on their part. First, I would advise you to stop assuming things and actually read what people are saying before you build straw men to discredit their positions. Second, I've repeatedly explained my issue with the use of the term "corruption" to describe practices and a legal framework which I see as problematic but not actual examples of corruption. This doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of an influence of money on elections -- a 501(c)(4) buying ads against a candidate thanks to undisclosed donations can very well have an influence on the election by impacting the views of those watching the ads, and I have a problem with the legal framework allowing this. I'm also not denying the existence of actual corruption, or in general of specific cases of officials being influenced in their views because of money interests -- this can and does happen. I have simply argued this is not synonymous with the system itself, or the majority of the people working within it, being "corrupt". And I have certainly not argued that everyone is corrupt except for Hillary. To sum up, "I would suggest" you avoid giving condescending suggestions when you're not even capable of addressing what other people are actually saying without resorting to misrepresentations. All right. I apologize for the very short-sighted assumptions I made. I shouldn't have assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics because you thought money in politics was a big issue. My suggestion stays the same though. See you next time.
I do think money in politics is a big issue. The issue that is "money in politics", however, is far from limited to instances of corruption, where that term is actually warranted. I've made this abundantly clear in my posts, so I'll thank you for making clear, through your pretending that I don't really think money in politics is a big issue, that you're simply not interested in discussing this honestly. I'll change my suggestion from "pay attention to what others are saying" to "stop dishonestly misrepresenting what others are saying". "See you next time."
|
On April 25 2016 14:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described. Sanders is no less taking part, and using, the same "corrupt" system. The only difference is that you're drawing an arbitrary line about where the money is coming from. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a perfectly logical line. The people who give money to Sanders are trying to obtain something in return, just like the big donors: they're trying to get their voice to be heard. They heard Bernie's message, they think it represents their voice, and so they support him with their money. The difference is, it is actually a politician's job to be the voice of people who support him in a democracy, so they're trying to influence him into playing his role. People who donate to Clinton in the same way are doing the exact same thing. The big donors' attempt is one to steal this influence away from the people and to themselves. Depending on what you think of the system, they are either successful or unsuccessful at it.
Except you're not making accusations on the side of the donors, you're making accusations at the candidates.
And Sanders campaign is very much a giant advertising and fundraising machine, shaped to incite people to pull out their wallets.
Again, there's a reason why many other Democratic nations have a election expense limit which is a tiny fraction of what the US primaries spend: because they believe too much money in the process hurts the integrity of the system. The only reason you're drawing the line at the money sources (aka it's fine if Bernie spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant marketing extravaganza because he gets his money from nicer places) is to excuse the candidate you like of using a broken system.
Which, ironically, is what you built a strawman around.
|
On April 25 2016 14:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:34 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Starting to wonder if this is you... Correct The Record will invest more than $1 million into Barrier Breakers 2016 activities, including the more than tripling of its digital operation to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram. Yes, because people who disagree with your shitty ad hominems and conspiratorial attacks on Hillary Clinton are necessarily bought by her campaign. It's a comfortable worldview to have -- you're pure and right on the issues, while everyone who disagrees is wrong and a paid shill. Too bad it's not true. That was in jest, what about the other part of the post though?
See, next time you'll want to engage in an actual discussion, you'll avoid going for an ad hominem first. I'm not interested in responding extensively to a post you began by taking a shot at me. But if you think there will no longer be conservative SuperPACs hoping to influence the November elections if Trump is the nominee, I have a bridge to sell you.
|
On April 25 2016 14:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:30 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:16 Nebuchad wrote:
Well I just assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics and criticized Citizens United because you believed those corrupting influences played a big enough role in the system to deserve your time and criticism. If you don't, then I would suggest you don't spend that much time arguing against them, cause apparently the corrupting influences are spending an absurd amount of money on trying to influence the political system and are largely failing at it, not getting a whole lot of results for their efforts, so that's a waste on their part. First, I would advise you to stop assuming things and actually read what people are saying before you build straw men to discredit their positions. Second, I've repeatedly explained my issue with the use of the term "corruption" to describe practices and a legal framework which I see as problematic but not actual examples of corruption. This doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of an influence of money on elections -- a 501(c)(4) buying ads against a candidate thanks to undisclosed donations can very well have an influence on the election by impacting the views of those watching the ads, and I have a problem with the legal framework allowing this. I'm also not denying the existence of actual corruption, or in general of specific cases of officials being influenced in their views because of money interests -- this can and does happen. I have simply argued this is not synonymous with the system itself, or the majority of the people working within it, being "corrupt". And I have certainly not argued that everyone is corrupt except for Hillary. To sum up, "I would suggest" you avoid giving condescending suggestions when you're not even capable of addressing what other people are actually saying without resorting to misrepresentations. All right. I apologize for the very short-sighted assumptions I made. I shouldn't have assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics because you thought money in politics was a big issue. My suggestion stays the same though. See you next time. I do think money in politics is a big issue. The issue that is "money in politics", however, is far from limited to instances of corruption, where the term is actually warranted. I've made this abundantly clear in my posts, so I'll thank you for making clear, through your pretending that I don't really think money in politics is a big issue, that you're simply not interested in discussing this honestly. I'll change my suggestion from "pay attention to what others are saying" to "stop dishonestly misrepresenting what others are saying". "See you next time."
When people say the system is corrupt, they are refering to the influence of money in politics in general. I'm sure it can be argued that it's a shortcut to say corruption to refer to all of these influences, but it's an easy shortcut to make and it's an especially easy one to understand. Again, if your position is that money plays a big role in politics, or too big a role in politics, I don't think your position is that different in spirit from "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in politics". I just think you're using different terms, perhaps more specific terms, but you have the same definitive problem.
|
On April 25 2016 14:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described. Sanders is no less taking part, and using, the same "corrupt" system. The only difference is that you're drawing an arbitrary line about where the money is coming from. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a perfectly logical line. The people who give money to Sanders are trying to obtain something in return, just like the big donors: they're trying to get their voice to be heard. They heard Bernie's message, they think it represents their voice, and so they support him with their money. The difference is, it is actually a politician's job to be the voice of people who support him in a democracy, so they're trying to influence him into playing his role. People who donate to Clinton in the same way are doing the exact same thing. The big donors' attempt is one to steal this influence away from the people and to themselves. Depending on what you think of the system, they are either successful or unsuccessful at it. Except you're not making accusations on the side of the donors, you're making accusations at the candidates. And Sanders campaign is very much a giant advertising and fundraising machine, shaped to incite people to pull out their wallets. Again, there's a reason why many other Democratic nations have a election expense limit which is a tiny fraction of what the US primaries spend: because they believe too much money in the process hurts the integrity of the system. The only reason you're drawing the line at the money sources (aka it's fine if Bernie spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant marketing extravaganza because he gets his money from nicer places) is to excuse the candidate you like of using a broken system. Which, ironically, is what you built a strawman around.
Is that true? I would figure it was because they have a fraction of what we do in population and we spend an inordinate amount (particularly in the general).
~$20 per voter would go a long way, but even $5 per 2 voters still adds up to a lot of money. I think the whole using the system that exists is a reasonable explanation for why Bernie is using the fundraising methods he is, but I don't think it justifies exploiting loopholes that even Republicans haven't used, especially how she is using them. I think it's a fair difference of opinion on our side, but everyone wants to argue semantics instead of what's being meant (unironically arguing that he's being straw manned).
|
On April 25 2016 14:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:43 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:30 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:16 Nebuchad wrote:
Well I just assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics and criticized Citizens United because you believed those corrupting influences played a big enough role in the system to deserve your time and criticism. If you don't, then I would suggest you don't spend that much time arguing against them, cause apparently the corrupting influences are spending an absurd amount of money on trying to influence the political system and are largely failing at it, not getting a whole lot of results for their efforts, so that's a waste on their part. First, I would advise you to stop assuming things and actually read what people are saying before you build straw men to discredit their positions. Second, I've repeatedly explained my issue with the use of the term "corruption" to describe practices and a legal framework which I see as problematic but not actual examples of corruption. This doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of an influence of money on elections -- a 501(c)(4) buying ads against a candidate thanks to undisclosed donations can very well have an influence on the election by impacting the views of those watching the ads, and I have a problem with the legal framework allowing this. I'm also not denying the existence of actual corruption, or in general of specific cases of officials being influenced in their views because of money interests -- this can and does happen. I have simply argued this is not synonymous with the system itself, or the majority of the people working within it, being "corrupt". And I have certainly not argued that everyone is corrupt except for Hillary. To sum up, "I would suggest" you avoid giving condescending suggestions when you're not even capable of addressing what other people are actually saying without resorting to misrepresentations. All right. I apologize for the very short-sighted assumptions I made. I shouldn't have assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics because you thought money in politics was a big issue. My suggestion stays the same though. See you next time. I do think money in politics is a big issue. The issue that is "money in politics", however, is far from limited to instances of corruption, where the term is actually warranted. I've made this abundantly clear in my posts, so I'll thank you for making clear, through your pretending that I don't really think money in politics is a big issue, that you're simply not interested in discussing this honestly. I'll change my suggestion from "pay attention to what others are saying" to "stop dishonestly misrepresenting what others are saying". "See you next time." When people say the system is corrupt, they are refering to the influence of money in politics in general. I'm sure it can be argued that it's a shortcut to say corruption to refer to all of these influences, but it's an easy shortcut to make and it's an especially easy one to understand. Again, if your position is that money plays a big role in politics, or too big a role in politics, I don't think your position is that different in spirit from "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in politics". I just think you're using different terms, perhaps more specific terms, but you have the same definitive problem.
I have explicitly described my position and my use of the word. I reject the characterization "the system is corrupt" or that everyone in the system is "corrupt". This is not the same as arguing that I do not think there is an issue with "money in politics". I also do not claim that Hillary is any different from plenty of other candidates, including Obama, in her behavior within that system. Your strawman was simply not an accurate representation of my position.
|
On April 25 2016 14:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described. Sanders is no less taking part, and using, the same "corrupt" system. The only difference is that you're drawing an arbitrary line about where the money is coming from. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a perfectly logical line. The people who give money to Sanders are trying to obtain something in return, just like the big donors: they're trying to get their voice to be heard. They heard Bernie's message, they think it represents their voice, and so they support him with their money. The difference is, it is actually a politician's job to be the voice of people who support him in a democracy, so they're trying to influence him into playing his role. People who donate to Clinton in the same way are doing the exact same thing. The big donors' attempt is one to steal this influence away from the people and to themselves. Depending on what you think of the system, they are either successful or unsuccessful at it. Except you're not making accusations on the side of the donors, you're making accusations at the candidates. And Sanders campaign is very much a giant advertising and fundraising machine, shaped to incite people to pull out their wallets. Again, there's a reason why many other Democratic nations have a election expense limit which is a tiny fraction of what the US primaries spend: because they believe too much money in the process hurts the integrity of the system. The only reason you're drawing the line at the money sources (aka it's fine if Bernie spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant marketing extravaganza because he gets his money from nicer places) is to excuse the candidate you like of using a broken system. Which, ironically, is what you built a strawman around.
Well I agree with you. There should be an expense limit to elections, and to the influence of money in politics in general. You're with me? Cool, that's awesome. Let's make our voices heard using our (fictional) ability to vote (because we're both foreigners). Which candidate should we choose?
|
On April 25 2016 14:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 14:34 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Starting to wonder if this is you... Correct The Record will invest more than $1 million into Barrier Breakers 2016 activities, including the more than tripling of its digital operation to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram. Yes, because people who disagree with your shitty ad hominems and conspiratorial attacks on Hillary Clinton are necessarily bought by her campaign. It's a comfortable worldview to have -- you're pure and right on the issues, while everyone who disagrees is wrong and a paid shill. Too bad it's not true. That was in jest, what about the other part of the post though? See, next time you'll want to engage in an actual discussion, you'll avoid going for an ad hominem first. I'm not interested in responding extensively to a post you began by taking a shot at me. But if you think there will no longer be conservative SuperPACs hoping to influence the November elections if Trump is the nominee, I have a bridge to sell you.
Koch just said he probably wouldn't fund Trump, and we're not talking generic party superPAC's, we're talking about the one's like I mentioned (which is why I quoted it) which is a candidate specific superPAC she's directly coordinating with right now to do work when NO ONE else has that. That's unilateral escalation, not some sort of "I can't let only the Republicans do it" that simply doesn't make any sense.
|
On April 25 2016 14:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 14:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described. Sanders is no less taking part, and using, the same "corrupt" system. The only difference is that you're drawing an arbitrary line about where the money is coming from. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a perfectly logical line. The people who give money to Sanders are trying to obtain something in return, just like the big donors: they're trying to get their voice to be heard. They heard Bernie's message, they think it represents their voice, and so they support him with their money. The difference is, it is actually a politician's job to be the voice of people who support him in a democracy, so they're trying to influence him into playing his role. People who donate to Clinton in the same way are doing the exact same thing. The big donors' attempt is one to steal this influence away from the people and to themselves. Depending on what you think of the system, they are either successful or unsuccessful at it. Except you're not making accusations on the side of the donors, you're making accusations at the candidates. And Sanders campaign is very much a giant advertising and fundraising machine, shaped to incite people to pull out their wallets. Again, there's a reason why many other Democratic nations have a election expense limit which is a tiny fraction of what the US primaries spend: because they believe too much money in the process hurts the integrity of the system. The only reason you're drawing the line at the money sources (aka it's fine if Bernie spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant marketing extravaganza because he gets his money from nicer places) is to excuse the candidate you like of using a broken system. Which, ironically, is what you built a strawman around. Is that true? I would figure it was because they have a fraction of what we do in population and we spend an inordinate amount (particularly in the general). ~$20 per voter would go a long way, but even $5 per 2 voters still adds up to a lot of money. I think the whole using the system that exists is a reasonable explanation for why Bernie is using the fundraising methods he is, but I don't think it justifies exploiting loopholes that even Republicans haven't used, especially how she is using them. I think it's a fair difference of opinion on our side, but everyone wants to argue semantics instead of what's being meant (unironically arguing that he's being straw manned).
Yes, it's absolutely true.
Can't speak directly for other nations and how well financed their parties are, but in Canada at least parties have plenty of banked funds that well exceed the amount they're allowed to spend for an election (and given how the minority party system works, sometimes that money is required ahead of schedule).
It isn't a hard limit because it adjusts based on the length of the election campaigning period. But to give some perspective, the last Canadian election was increased to 3 months and that caused quite a big stink (and might have hurt the Conservatives who set this timeframe). I think each party had a limit of $58 million in this election, while the normal and expected amount is closer to $25-30 million..
|
On April 25 2016 15:01 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:52 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:43 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:30 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:16 Nebuchad wrote:
Well I just assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics and criticized Citizens United because you believed those corrupting influences played a big enough role in the system to deserve your time and criticism. If you don't, then I would suggest you don't spend that much time arguing against them, cause apparently the corrupting influences are spending an absurd amount of money on trying to influence the political system and are largely failing at it, not getting a whole lot of results for their efforts, so that's a waste on their part. First, I would advise you to stop assuming things and actually read what people are saying before you build straw men to discredit their positions. Second, I've repeatedly explained my issue with the use of the term "corruption" to describe practices and a legal framework which I see as problematic but not actual examples of corruption. This doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of an influence of money on elections -- a 501(c)(4) buying ads against a candidate thanks to undisclosed donations can very well have an influence on the election by impacting the views of those watching the ads, and I have a problem with the legal framework allowing this. I'm also not denying the existence of actual corruption, or in general of specific cases of officials being influenced in their views because of money interests -- this can and does happen. I have simply argued this is not synonymous with the system itself, or the majority of the people working within it, being "corrupt". And I have certainly not argued that everyone is corrupt except for Hillary. To sum up, "I would suggest" you avoid giving condescending suggestions when you're not even capable of addressing what other people are actually saying without resorting to misrepresentations. All right. I apologize for the very short-sighted assumptions I made. I shouldn't have assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics because you thought money in politics was a big issue. My suggestion stays the same though. See you next time. I do think money in politics is a big issue. The issue that is "money in politics", however, is far from limited to instances of corruption, where the term is actually warranted. I've made this abundantly clear in my posts, so I'll thank you for making clear, through your pretending that I don't really think money in politics is a big issue, that you're simply not interested in discussing this honestly. I'll change my suggestion from "pay attention to what others are saying" to "stop dishonestly misrepresenting what others are saying". "See you next time." When people say the system is corrupt, they are refering to the influence of money in politics in general. I'm sure it can be argued that it's a shortcut to say corruption to refer to all of these influences, but it's an easy shortcut to make and it's an especially easy one to understand. Again, if your position is that money plays a big role in politics, or too big a role in politics, I don't think your position is that different in spirit from "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in politics". I just think you're using different terms, perhaps more specific terms, but you have the same definitive problem. I have explicitly described my position and my use of the word. I reject the characterization "the system is corrupt" or that everyone in the system is "corrupt". This is not the same as arguing that I do not think there is an issue with "money in politics". I also do not claim that Hillary is any different from plenty of other candidates, including Obama, in her behavior within that system. Your strawman was simply not an accurate representation of my position.
But I specifically was talking about "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in politics" there, not to "the system is corrupt", which I believe is a shortcut to say the former. I also agree with you that Hillary is very similar to Obama, and a lot of people on Sanders' side would agree with that.
|
On April 25 2016 15:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 14:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 14:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described. Sanders is no less taking part, and using, the same "corrupt" system. The only difference is that you're drawing an arbitrary line about where the money is coming from. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a perfectly logical line. The people who give money to Sanders are trying to obtain something in return, just like the big donors: they're trying to get their voice to be heard. They heard Bernie's message, they think it represents their voice, and so they support him with their money. The difference is, it is actually a politician's job to be the voice of people who support him in a democracy, so they're trying to influence him into playing his role. People who donate to Clinton in the same way are doing the exact same thing. The big donors' attempt is one to steal this influence away from the people and to themselves. Depending on what you think of the system, they are either successful or unsuccessful at it. Except you're not making accusations on the side of the donors, you're making accusations at the candidates. And Sanders campaign is very much a giant advertising and fundraising machine, shaped to incite people to pull out their wallets. Again, there's a reason why many other Democratic nations have a election expense limit which is a tiny fraction of what the US primaries spend: because they believe too much money in the process hurts the integrity of the system. The only reason you're drawing the line at the money sources (aka it's fine if Bernie spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant marketing extravaganza because he gets his money from nicer places) is to excuse the candidate you like of using a broken system. Which, ironically, is what you built a strawman around. Is that true? I would figure it was because they have a fraction of what we do in population and we spend an inordinate amount (particularly in the general). ~$20 per voter would go a long way, but even $5 per 2 voters still adds up to a lot of money. I think the whole using the system that exists is a reasonable explanation for why Bernie is using the fundraising methods he is, but I don't think it justifies exploiting loopholes that even Republicans haven't used, especially how she is using them. I think it's a fair difference of opinion on our side, but everyone wants to argue semantics instead of what's being meant (unironically arguing that he's being straw manned). Yes, it's absolutely true. Can't speak directly for other nations and how well financed their parties are, but in Canada at least parties have plenty of banked funds that well exceed the amount they're allowed to spend for an election (and given how the minority party system works, sometimes that money is required ahead of schedule). It isn't a hard limit because it adjusts based on the length of the election campaigning period. But to give some perspective, the last Canadian election was increased to 3 months and that caused quite a big stink (and might have hurt the Conservatives who set this timeframe). I think each party had a limit of $58 million in this election, while the normal and expected amount is closer to $25-30 million..
That's kind of what I'm saying, that would still be about $500 million.
|
On April 25 2016 15:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 15:01 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:52 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:43 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:30 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:16 Nebuchad wrote:
Well I just assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics and criticized Citizens United because you believed those corrupting influences played a big enough role in the system to deserve your time and criticism. If you don't, then I would suggest you don't spend that much time arguing against them, cause apparently the corrupting influences are spending an absurd amount of money on trying to influence the political system and are largely failing at it, not getting a whole lot of results for their efforts, so that's a waste on their part. First, I would advise you to stop assuming things and actually read what people are saying before you build straw men to discredit their positions. Second, I've repeatedly explained my issue with the use of the term "corruption" to describe practices and a legal framework which I see as problematic but not actual examples of corruption. This doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of an influence of money on elections -- a 501(c)(4) buying ads against a candidate thanks to undisclosed donations can very well have an influence on the election by impacting the views of those watching the ads, and I have a problem with the legal framework allowing this. I'm also not denying the existence of actual corruption, or in general of specific cases of officials being influenced in their views because of money interests -- this can and does happen. I have simply argued this is not synonymous with the system itself, or the majority of the people working within it, being "corrupt". And I have certainly not argued that everyone is corrupt except for Hillary. To sum up, "I would suggest" you avoid giving condescending suggestions when you're not even capable of addressing what other people are actually saying without resorting to misrepresentations. All right. I apologize for the very short-sighted assumptions I made. I shouldn't have assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics because you thought money in politics was a big issue. My suggestion stays the same though. See you next time. I do think money in politics is a big issue. The issue that is "money in politics", however, is far from limited to instances of corruption, where the term is actually warranted. I've made this abundantly clear in my posts, so I'll thank you for making clear, through your pretending that I don't really think money in politics is a big issue, that you're simply not interested in discussing this honestly. I'll change my suggestion from "pay attention to what others are saying" to "stop dishonestly misrepresenting what others are saying". "See you next time." When people say the system is corrupt, they are refering to the influence of money in politics in general. I'm sure it can be argued that it's a shortcut to say corruption to refer to all of these influences, but it's an easy shortcut to make and it's an especially easy one to understand. Again, if your position is that money plays a big role in politics, or too big a role in politics, I don't think your position is that different in spirit from "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in politics". I just think you're using different terms, perhaps more specific terms, but you have the same definitive problem. I have explicitly described my position and my use of the word. I reject the characterization "the system is corrupt" or that everyone in the system is "corrupt". This is not the same as arguing that I do not think there is an issue with "money in politics". I also do not claim that Hillary is any different from plenty of other candidates, including Obama, in her behavior within that system. Your strawman was simply not an accurate representation of my position. But I specifically was talking about "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in politics" there, not to "the system is corrupt", which I believe is a shortcut to say the former. I also agree with you that Hillary is very similar to Obama, and a lot of people on Sanders' side would agree with that.
Again, I have been decrying the influence of money in politics not only with regards to specific instances of views of officials being influenced by donations from special interests, but with respect to the impact organizations like SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s can have on voters. I have never argued that you could not find examples of officials following the views of their donators, but I have rejected the idea that this is a permanent and systematic norm for politicians, or an inherent characteristic of the system. In any case, since you agree with me that Hillary is similar to Obama and plenty of others (who are not corrupt) in how she operates within the system (as long as it exists this way -- she's still trying to change it), you agree that the position you initially attributed to me is wrong, since it purported that Hillary had unique traits and a unique behavior in the system.
|
purported that Hillary had unique traits and a unique behavior in the system
She does. That's an indisputable fact. Just probably not the way you mean it.
|
On April 25 2016 15:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +purported that Hillary had unique traits and a unique behavior in the system She does. That's an indisputable fact.
I'm not interested in arguing this with you, the point I'm making is that this is not my position with regards to what Nebuchad was originally claiming.
|
On April 25 2016 15:20 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 15:20 GreenHorizons wrote:purported that Hillary had unique traits and a unique behavior in the system She does. That's an indisputable fact. I'm not interested in arguing this with you, the point I'm making is that this is not my position with regards to what Nebuchad was originally claiming.
It is what you're ignoring that's part of why your argument doesn't seem sincere. You and she argue that she can't "unilaterally disarm" but ignore she's going above and beyond what anyone else has done.
|
On April 25 2016 15:16 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 15:09 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 15:01 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:52 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:43 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:30 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 14:16 Nebuchad wrote:
Well I just assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics and criticized Citizens United because you believed those corrupting influences played a big enough role in the system to deserve your time and criticism. If you don't, then I would suggest you don't spend that much time arguing against them, cause apparently the corrupting influences are spending an absurd amount of money on trying to influence the political system and are largely failing at it, not getting a whole lot of results for their efforts, so that's a waste on their part. First, I would advise you to stop assuming things and actually read what people are saying before you build straw men to discredit their positions. Second, I've repeatedly explained my issue with the use of the term "corruption" to describe practices and a legal framework which I see as problematic but not actual examples of corruption. This doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of an influence of money on elections -- a 501(c)(4) buying ads against a candidate thanks to undisclosed donations can very well have an influence on the election by impacting the views of those watching the ads, and I have a problem with the legal framework allowing this. I'm also not denying the existence of actual corruption, or in general of specific cases of officials being influenced in their views because of money interests -- this can and does happen. I have simply argued this is not synonymous with the system itself, or the majority of the people working within it, being "corrupt". And I have certainly not argued that everyone is corrupt except for Hillary. To sum up, "I would suggest" you avoid giving condescending suggestions when you're not even capable of addressing what other people are actually saying without resorting to misrepresentations. All right. I apologize for the very short-sighted assumptions I made. I shouldn't have assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics because you thought money in politics was a big issue. My suggestion stays the same though. See you next time. I do think money in politics is a big issue. The issue that is "money in politics", however, is far from limited to instances of corruption, where the term is actually warranted. I've made this abundantly clear in my posts, so I'll thank you for making clear, through your pretending that I don't really think money in politics is a big issue, that you're simply not interested in discussing this honestly. I'll change my suggestion from "pay attention to what others are saying" to "stop dishonestly misrepresenting what others are saying". "See you next time." When people say the system is corrupt, they are refering to the influence of money in politics in general. I'm sure it can be argued that it's a shortcut to say corruption to refer to all of these influences, but it's an easy shortcut to make and it's an especially easy one to understand. Again, if your position is that money plays a big role in politics, or too big a role in politics, I don't think your position is that different in spirit from "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in politics". I just think you're using different terms, perhaps more specific terms, but you have the same definitive problem. I have explicitly described my position and my use of the word. I reject the characterization "the system is corrupt" or that everyone in the system is "corrupt". This is not the same as arguing that I do not think there is an issue with "money in politics". I also do not claim that Hillary is any different from plenty of other candidates, including Obama, in her behavior within that system. Your strawman was simply not an accurate representation of my position. But I specifically was talking about "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in politics" there, not to "the system is corrupt", which I believe is a shortcut to say the former. I also agree with you that Hillary is very similar to Obama, and a lot of people on Sanders' side would agree with that. Again, I have been decrying the influence of money in politics not only with regards to specific instances of views of officials being influenced by donations from special interests, but with respect to the impact organizations like SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s can have on voters. I have never argued that you could not find examples of officials following the views of their donators, but I have rejected the idea that this is a permanent and systematic norm for politicians, or an inherent characteristic of the system. In any case, since you agree with me that Hillary is similar to Obama and plenty of others (who are not corrupt) in how she operates within the system (as long as it exists this way -- she's still trying to change it), you agree that the position you initially attributed to me is wrong, since it purported that Hillary had unique traits and a unique behavior in the system.
And I've been saying that the position you describe is similar in spirit to "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in politics", as long as you do believe that money in politics is a big problem. I've been saying that I just think you're using different terms, perhaps more specific terms, but you have the same definitive problem.
You are correct on the second point. Saying only Clinton had these traits was too much of a shortcut on my side. I should have said "the politicians I support" or something in that vein, as Obama must also be included.
|
On April 25 2016 15:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 15:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 14:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 14:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 14:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described. Sanders is no less taking part, and using, the same "corrupt" system. The only difference is that you're drawing an arbitrary line about where the money is coming from. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a perfectly logical line. The people who give money to Sanders are trying to obtain something in return, just like the big donors: they're trying to get their voice to be heard. They heard Bernie's message, they think it represents their voice, and so they support him with their money. The difference is, it is actually a politician's job to be the voice of people who support him in a democracy, so they're trying to influence him into playing his role. People who donate to Clinton in the same way are doing the exact same thing. The big donors' attempt is one to steal this influence away from the people and to themselves. Depending on what you think of the system, they are either successful or unsuccessful at it. Except you're not making accusations on the side of the donors, you're making accusations at the candidates. And Sanders campaign is very much a giant advertising and fundraising machine, shaped to incite people to pull out their wallets. Again, there's a reason why many other Democratic nations have a election expense limit which is a tiny fraction of what the US primaries spend: because they believe too much money in the process hurts the integrity of the system. The only reason you're drawing the line at the money sources (aka it's fine if Bernie spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant marketing extravaganza because he gets his money from nicer places) is to excuse the candidate you like of using a broken system. Which, ironically, is what you built a strawman around. Is that true? I would figure it was because they have a fraction of what we do in population and we spend an inordinate amount (particularly in the general). ~$20 per voter would go a long way, but even $5 per 2 voters still adds up to a lot of money. I think the whole using the system that exists is a reasonable explanation for why Bernie is using the fundraising methods he is, but I don't think it justifies exploiting loopholes that even Republicans haven't used, especially how she is using them. I think it's a fair difference of opinion on our side, but everyone wants to argue semantics instead of what's being meant (unironically arguing that he's being straw manned). Yes, it's absolutely true. Can't speak directly for other nations and how well financed their parties are, but in Canada at least parties have plenty of banked funds that well exceed the amount they're allowed to spend for an election (and given how the minority party system works, sometimes that money is required ahead of schedule). It isn't a hard limit because it adjusts based on the length of the election campaigning period. But to give some perspective, the last Canadian election was increased to 3 months and that caused quite a big stink (and might have hurt the Conservatives who set this timeframe). I think each party had a limit of $58 million in this election, while the normal and expected amount is closer to $25-30 million.. That's kind of what I'm saying, that would still be about $500 million.
Wait, what would be about $500 million? Do you mean proportionally?
Because it's a normal amount of, say, $30 million per entire party (only about 4 parties can actually reach this cap, a few can still hit the ~$10 million mark). And for the big parties, that's $30 million for 338 representatives trying to get elected (granted, the bulk does go to the party leader, who pulls up the other vicariously).
And again, we're talking $200-250 million spent for primary elections in the US, not even counting the actual Presidential race.
|
On April 25 2016 15:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 15:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 15:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 14:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 14:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 14:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described. Sanders is no less taking part, and using, the same "corrupt" system. The only difference is that you're drawing an arbitrary line about where the money is coming from. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a perfectly logical line. The people who give money to Sanders are trying to obtain something in return, just like the big donors: they're trying to get their voice to be heard. They heard Bernie's message, they think it represents their voice, and so they support him with their money. The difference is, it is actually a politician's job to be the voice of people who support him in a democracy, so they're trying to influence him into playing his role. People who donate to Clinton in the same way are doing the exact same thing. The big donors' attempt is one to steal this influence away from the people and to themselves. Depending on what you think of the system, they are either successful or unsuccessful at it. Except you're not making accusations on the side of the donors, you're making accusations at the candidates. And Sanders campaign is very much a giant advertising and fundraising machine, shaped to incite people to pull out their wallets. Again, there's a reason why many other Democratic nations have a election expense limit which is a tiny fraction of what the US primaries spend: because they believe too much money in the process hurts the integrity of the system. The only reason you're drawing the line at the money sources (aka it's fine if Bernie spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant marketing extravaganza because he gets his money from nicer places) is to excuse the candidate you like of using a broken system. Which, ironically, is what you built a strawman around. Is that true? I would figure it was because they have a fraction of what we do in population and we spend an inordinate amount (particularly in the general). ~$20 per voter would go a long way, but even $5 per 2 voters still adds up to a lot of money. I think the whole using the system that exists is a reasonable explanation for why Bernie is using the fundraising methods he is, but I don't think it justifies exploiting loopholes that even Republicans haven't used, especially how she is using them. I think it's a fair difference of opinion on our side, but everyone wants to argue semantics instead of what's being meant (unironically arguing that he's being straw manned). Yes, it's absolutely true. Can't speak directly for other nations and how well financed their parties are, but in Canada at least parties have plenty of banked funds that well exceed the amount they're allowed to spend for an election (and given how the minority party system works, sometimes that money is required ahead of schedule). It isn't a hard limit because it adjusts based on the length of the election campaigning period. But to give some perspective, the last Canadian election was increased to 3 months and that caused quite a big stink (and might have hurt the Conservatives who set this timeframe). I think each party had a limit of $58 million in this election, while the normal and expected amount is closer to $25-30 million.. That's kind of what I'm saying, that would still be about $500 million. Wait, what would be about $500 million? Do you mean proportionally? Because it's a normal amount of, say, $30 million per entire party (only about 4 parties can actually reach this cap, a few can still hit the ~$10 million mark). And for the big parties, that's $30 million for 338 representatives trying to get elected (granted, the bulk does go to the party leader, who pulls up the other vicariously). And again, we're talking $200-250 million spent for primary elections in the US, not even counting the actual Presidential race.
Yeah I'm saying with the population difference in mind, that would be about $500 million.
|
On April 25 2016 15:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 15:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 15:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 15:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 14:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 14:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 14:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described. Sanders is no less taking part, and using, the same "corrupt" system. The only difference is that you're drawing an arbitrary line about where the money is coming from. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a perfectly logical line. The people who give money to Sanders are trying to obtain something in return, just like the big donors: they're trying to get their voice to be heard. They heard Bernie's message, they think it represents their voice, and so they support him with their money. The difference is, it is actually a politician's job to be the voice of people who support him in a democracy, so they're trying to influence him into playing his role. People who donate to Clinton in the same way are doing the exact same thing. The big donors' attempt is one to steal this influence away from the people and to themselves. Depending on what you think of the system, they are either successful or unsuccessful at it. Except you're not making accusations on the side of the donors, you're making accusations at the candidates. And Sanders campaign is very much a giant advertising and fundraising machine, shaped to incite people to pull out their wallets. Again, there's a reason why many other Democratic nations have a election expense limit which is a tiny fraction of what the US primaries spend: because they believe too much money in the process hurts the integrity of the system. The only reason you're drawing the line at the money sources (aka it's fine if Bernie spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant marketing extravaganza because he gets his money from nicer places) is to excuse the candidate you like of using a broken system. Which, ironically, is what you built a strawman around. Is that true? I would figure it was because they have a fraction of what we do in population and we spend an inordinate amount (particularly in the general). ~$20 per voter would go a long way, but even $5 per 2 voters still adds up to a lot of money. I think the whole using the system that exists is a reasonable explanation for why Bernie is using the fundraising methods he is, but I don't think it justifies exploiting loopholes that even Republicans haven't used, especially how she is using them. I think it's a fair difference of opinion on our side, but everyone wants to argue semantics instead of what's being meant (unironically arguing that he's being straw manned). Yes, it's absolutely true. Can't speak directly for other nations and how well financed their parties are, but in Canada at least parties have plenty of banked funds that well exceed the amount they're allowed to spend for an election (and given how the minority party system works, sometimes that money is required ahead of schedule). It isn't a hard limit because it adjusts based on the length of the election campaigning period. But to give some perspective, the last Canadian election was increased to 3 months and that caused quite a big stink (and might have hurt the Conservatives who set this timeframe). I think each party had a limit of $58 million in this election, while the normal and expected amount is closer to $25-30 million.. That's kind of what I'm saying, that would still be about $500 million. Wait, what would be about $500 million? Do you mean proportionally? Because it's a normal amount of, say, $30 million per entire party (only about 4 parties can actually reach this cap, a few can still hit the ~$10 million mark). And for the big parties, that's $30 million for 338 representatives trying to get elected (granted, the bulk does go to the party leader, who pulls up the other vicariously). And again, we're talking $200-250 million spent for primary elections in the US, not even counting the actual Presidential race. Yeah I'm saying with the population difference in mind, that would be about $500 million.
Ok, sure...but I'm not sure why being able to proportionally raise more money matters? For one thing, campaigning doesn't necessarily cost 10x more for the same level of proportional coverage.
And again, Canadian parties could spend more money in elections. They're just not allowed to.
|
On April 25 2016 15:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 15:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 15:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 15:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 15:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 14:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 14:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 14:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 14:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described. Sanders is no less taking part, and using, the same "corrupt" system. The only difference is that you're drawing an arbitrary line about where the money is coming from. It's not an arbitrary line, it's a perfectly logical line. The people who give money to Sanders are trying to obtain something in return, just like the big donors: they're trying to get their voice to be heard. They heard Bernie's message, they think it represents their voice, and so they support him with their money. The difference is, it is actually a politician's job to be the voice of people who support him in a democracy, so they're trying to influence him into playing his role. People who donate to Clinton in the same way are doing the exact same thing. The big donors' attempt is one to steal this influence away from the people and to themselves. Depending on what you think of the system, they are either successful or unsuccessful at it. Except you're not making accusations on the side of the donors, you're making accusations at the candidates. And Sanders campaign is very much a giant advertising and fundraising machine, shaped to incite people to pull out their wallets. Again, there's a reason why many other Democratic nations have a election expense limit which is a tiny fraction of what the US primaries spend: because they believe too much money in the process hurts the integrity of the system. The only reason you're drawing the line at the money sources (aka it's fine if Bernie spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a giant marketing extravaganza because he gets his money from nicer places) is to excuse the candidate you like of using a broken system. Which, ironically, is what you built a strawman around. Is that true? I would figure it was because they have a fraction of what we do in population and we spend an inordinate amount (particularly in the general). ~$20 per voter would go a long way, but even $5 per 2 voters still adds up to a lot of money. I think the whole using the system that exists is a reasonable explanation for why Bernie is using the fundraising methods he is, but I don't think it justifies exploiting loopholes that even Republicans haven't used, especially how she is using them. I think it's a fair difference of opinion on our side, but everyone wants to argue semantics instead of what's being meant (unironically arguing that he's being straw manned). Yes, it's absolutely true. Can't speak directly for other nations and how well financed their parties are, but in Canada at least parties have plenty of banked funds that well exceed the amount they're allowed to spend for an election (and given how the minority party system works, sometimes that money is required ahead of schedule). It isn't a hard limit because it adjusts based on the length of the election campaigning period. But to give some perspective, the last Canadian election was increased to 3 months and that caused quite a big stink (and might have hurt the Conservatives who set this timeframe). I think each party had a limit of $58 million in this election, while the normal and expected amount is closer to $25-30 million.. That's kind of what I'm saying, that would still be about $500 million. Wait, what would be about $500 million? Do you mean proportionally? Because it's a normal amount of, say, $30 million per entire party (only about 4 parties can actually reach this cap, a few can still hit the ~$10 million mark). And for the big parties, that's $30 million for 338 representatives trying to get elected (granted, the bulk does go to the party leader, who pulls up the other vicariously). And again, we're talking $200-250 million spent for primary elections in the US, not even counting the actual Presidential race. Yeah I'm saying with the population difference in mind, that would be about $500 million. Ok, sure...but I'm not sure why being able to proportionally raise more money matters? For one thing, campaigning doesn't necessarily cost 10x more for the same level of proportional coverage. And again, Canadian parties could spend more money in elections. They're just not allowed to.
I'm not arguing against the concept, just saying that when broken down per voter it wouldn't take much to raise a lot so it's probably always going to be more than others (until stuff costs more in India or something).
How do you prevent outside money from doing random things up there? I'm thinking about the excuses against the idea lobbied here, like Citizens United?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
