Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits

[Mare Tranquillity]

Why would you have a problem with foreign countries paying for ads to get Democrats elected?

Was there anything, I mean ANYTHING, in my posts that said I'd have a problem with foreign countries paying for ads for Democrats? Or Republicans for that matter? No, there wasn't.

I was trying to find out how Dogtown felt about the subject, so I asked.

Personally, I don't think government should be sold to the highest bidder, but hey, that's just because I'm not rich, right? I think that publicly funded campaigns limited to just 3 months would probably be a good idea. No private money for anybody, everyone who runs gets the same-size check from the public purse and that's all they can spend.

Equally, I think that paying minimum wage to all elected officials should be required, barracks should be provided for them to live in, they can use public transit, and take their meals in the Capital cafeteria. We have become a kakistocracy (government by the people least suited to govern) because it's degenerated into a greed festival.

I also agree with Abraham Lincoln that corporations should not be given the status of people--or in the case of current politics "super people".

 

[GenSeneca]

Personally, I don't think government should be sold to the highest bidder, but hey, that's just because I'm not rich, right?

I keep hearing the leftist echo chamber claim that Money=Votes but not a single one of you have been able to substantiate that claim.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I keep hearing the leftist echo chamber claim that Money=Votes but not a single one of you have been able to substantiate that claim.

The billions spent on Lobbists and bribes to government officials don't buy votes? Oh yeah, I believe that. Why would you write something like that? You know it's not true, the corporations aren't donating that money out of goodwill.

As far as elections go, I think that the tens of millions spent by the Mormon church to support the Measure 8 terror campaign was very effective. If you tell a big enough lie, loud enough, and long enough you can make people believe it.

 

[citizenzen]

Why would you have a problem with foreign countries paying for ads to get Democrats elected?

Let's take the partisanship out of the question and try it again...

Why would you have a problem with foreign countries paying for ads to get politicians elected?

And I would ask you, why would you not?

China's got a lot of money. Our next leader... brought to you by the People's Republic of China.

Yeah. That sounds like a good idea.

 

[GenSeneca]

The billions spent on Lobbists and bribes to government officials don't buy votes?

On that we don't disagree but that wasn't the topic of the thread.

You continually claim that having no spending limits on campaign financing allows the person with the most money to win the election but you have yet to substantiate that claim.

 

[GenSeneca]

And I would ask you, why would you not?

Because I'm not so gullible to believe that Money=Votes.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Because I'm not so gullible to believe that Money=Votes.

of course that would be the gullible thing to think.

if money did not mean votes, they would not raise so much money.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

On that we don't disagree but that wasn't the topic of the thread.

You continually claim that having no spending limits on campaign financing allows the person with the most money to win the election but you have yet to substantiate that claim.

Are you seriously arguing that the big money players are not winning the elections? If you mean that it's not a sure thing that the highest spender will win, then I agree with you, but that's why the really big spenders give money to both parties. If money isn't a factor, then why not limit it to public funding of 1/1000 of what's been spent for the last election?

The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Because I'm not so gullible to believe that Money=Votes.

That means that you ARE so gullible as to think that all those rich people and corporations are deliberately wasting their money. Uh huh, I believe that.

 

[GenSeneca]

Are you seriously arguing that the big money players are not winning the elections?

They are usually the only ones that run for office... Or hadn't you noticed?

 

[GenSeneca]

That means that you ARE so gullible as to think that all those rich people and corporations are deliberately wasting their money.

You forgot to mention Unions... But yeah, they flush all that money down the drain when their guy loses the election.

 

[GenSeneca]

if money did not mean votes, they would not raise so much money.

I'm not saying it doesn't help.

You guys are the ones trying to claim that the candidates with the most money will win the election, thus making it unfair for candidates who can't collect as much money. That of course ignores the myriad of candidates who win despite being outspent by their competition.

Now lets hear another snappy comeback, some substance free, fact free, sarcastic laden, typical Pocket response.

 

[Sihouette]

Wow. Well now I'm looking for a smiley face for surely GenSeneca is joking?

Essentially GenSeneca is saying that money does not move people, that it has no power. I would say the burden of proof lies on that one proposing the absurd. So GenSeneca, the burden is upon you to disprove what every third grader knows to be irrefutable fact.

And no one is really willing to 'go there' as to Bin Laden and Al Qaida's ability to use proxies to influence our elections either.

As I said, corporations are bodies of stockholders and CEOs. If any of them have a say in which candidate to back, and that person or persons is a proxy for our enemy, then we are in big trouble allowing foreign influence into our elections.

The recent video tape of Bin Laden is unnerving. He did say he would try anything to topple us. It isn't a stretch of my imagination that he would seek to influence our elections in order to get that done..if he has people lining up willing to blow up their body to get it done, why would he hesitate at a much less painful and vastly more far-reaching devastation?

 

[citizenzen]

The power of money in elections...

The Best Elections Money Can Buy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Experience teaches us that money is a critical factor in determining election outcomes.

In 2000, 94 percent of the candidates who raised the most money won their general election contests.

In the 2002 congressional primaries, 90 percent of the biggest fundraisers emerged victorious.​

 

[citizenzen]

More...

The Wealth Primary: The Role of Big Money in the 2006 Congressional Primaries

Our analysis of Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign finance data for the 2006 primary elections shows that money played a key role in determining election outcomes and that most campaign contributions came from a small number of large donors.

• Money was a key factor in determining primary election outcomes. According to FEC data, major party congressional candidates who raised the most money won 92% of their primary races in 2006. Candidates who spent the most won 91% of the time. Winning candidates out-raised their opponents by a margin of 3.5-to-1, with the winners raising an average of $1.06 million and losers raising $304,000. This pattern held true for open seat races as well. The biggest fundraiser won 82% of the contests without an incumbent running for re-election in the district.​