PDA

View Full Version : Economics Karl Rove and Super PACs


Direckshun
11-11-2012, 03:11 PM
Watching the election results, and how Karl Rove spent $300 million through his super PAC on candidates that all lost, it's easy to forgive the non-role super PACs seemed to have played in deciding the 2012 election.

The thing is, coming to that conclusion is short-sighted. It's incorrect.

The fact that there are organizations that raise hundreds of millions from billionaires to influence elections is an egregious abuse of inequality (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=261475) and, frankly, antidemocratic.

Allowing unlimited funding still gives wealthy people yet another political leg up on everybody else in getting their message out there.

Because donating tons and tons of dollars isn't necessarily about winning. It's about investing in a party (http://www.mattglassman.com/?p=3376) that will fight for you when the politicking starts:

Winning isn’t everything. Nor is it the only thing. When you spend tens of millions of dollars trying to influence an election, you obviously want your preferred candidate to win. But the binary outcome of the election isn’t the only thing you can, or want, to influence. Your money is also going to affect: the policy issues your candidate raises, the positions on those policies that he introduces into the discourse, what issues he chooses to attack his opponent on, the way the media frames these debates, and so on and so forth. If Sheldon Adelson’s goal was to make sure neither candidate questioned the use of drones or backed the Colorado pot initiative, well, mission accomplished. It’s not like the end goal here is to get a man into the office; the goal is ultimately to influence policy.

By spending $300 million on Republican candidates, Karl Rove and his billionaires own the GOP. They own them.

Because a political donation of, let's say, a million dollars, isn't just a one-time purchase. It's communicating that I could give you a million more in the future. Therefore the party that ends up reaping that benefit (and both parties now rely on this (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=263671)) must now slave away for your demands, lest they risk those nine-figure donation checks going to the other party.

Despite the horrific results of the 2012 elections for Karl Rove, he is still very much in control of the GOP. And the wealthy remain very much in control of both parties.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karl-rove-and-his-super-pac-vow-to-press-on/2012/11/10/19ed28ea-2a96-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_story.html?hpid=z2

Karl Rove and his super PAC vow to press on
By Karen Tumulty,
Nov 10, 2012 11:58 PM EST

In the post-mortems of the 2012 election campaigns, it is already being written that the much-feared super PACs — those ostensibly independent, billionaire-funded outside organizations and their hundreds of millions in negative ads — turned out to be a bust.

At the center of the wreckage stands Karl Rove, the GOP strategist and supposed dark genius who for more than a decade has figured in the mythos of both parties.

With more than a little glee, Democrats and even some Republicans say the electoral defeat of so many candidates backed by his brainchild, a behemoth super PAC called American Crossroads, is proof that politics has finally passed Rove by.

It will be no surprise that Rove, not known for self-doubt, differs with that assessment.

“We did good things this year,” Rove said in an interview from California, where he had just given a speech with former Obama White House press secretary Robert Gibbs at an Association of Equipment Manufacturers convention. “But look, it’s the way of politics that you’re going to have some good years, and you’re going to have some bad years.”

As Rove sees it, the campaign proved that American Crossroads and its more secretive issue-advocacy arm, Crossroads GPS — which allows donors to remain anonymous — are here to stay.

Rove is pondering new missions for Crossroads to address weaknesses laid bare by the GOP’s back-to-back failures to win the White House and the fact that the party fell short when expected to win back the Senate.

Where until now it battled only in general elections and against Democrats, Crossroads is considering whether to start picking sides in Republican primaries. The idea would be to boost the candidate it deems most electable and avoid nominating the kind of flawed and extreme ones who cost the party what should otherwise have been easy Senate wins in Florida, Missouri and Indiana.

That, however, could put Crossroads at odds with the tea party and other groups that devote their energies to promoting the most ideologically pure contenders.

Crossroads also is likely to invest more deeply in organizations such as the Republican State Leadership Committee, which has been trying to build a more appealing GOP farm team by, among other things, recruiting Hispanic candidates to run for state-level office.

And it is raising money to run advertising shoring up the congressional Republicans during the upcoming negotiations to avert the “fiscal cliff.”

For Crossroads, 2012 was a $300 million learning experience.

“We’ve got to carefully examine, as we did after 2010, an after-action report looking at everything with fresh eyes and questioning and figuring out what worked and what didn’t work,” Rove said.

The failure of Crossroads to live up to expectations is not the only thing that has put Rove back into the news and revived the intrigue that surrounds a man whose seen and unseen hand works in so many places in politics.

In his role as an election-night pundit on Fox News, Rove got into a much-talked-about, on-air argument with the network when it decided to call Ohio for President Obama.

He also created a stir two days later, when he accused Obama’s campaign of “suppressing the vote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/08/karl-rove-obama-succeeded-by-suppressing-the-vote/),” using language that Democrats apply to measures such as voter ID laws that make it more cumbersome for people to cast ballots. Rove said he was referring to the denigration of Mitt Romney that made him less palatable to voters looking for an alternative to Obama.

Rove’s is the most famous name associated with Crossroads, but he said he receives no money from it, not even travel expenses, for his work as a strategist and fundraiser. Its day-to-day operations are run by its president, Steven Law.

Outside their circle, many of the performance reviews have been scathing.

The Sunlight Foundation, which tracks money in politics, calculated that only 6 percent of Crossroads money went to winners; by comparison, the Service Employees International Union, an old war horse of Democratic politics, had a 70 percent victory rate.

Celebrity real estate developer Donald Trump taunted on Twitter: “Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money.”

And Obama strategists David Axelrod said: “If I were one of those billionaires funding Crossroads and other organizations, I’d be wanting to talk to someone and asking where my refund is, because they didn’t get much for their money.”

However, Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, insisted Crossroads and the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future “had a very positive impact on leveling the playing field in key target states.”

“Obama for America had a strategy to put Gov. Romney and his campaign away early,” Rhoades wrote in an e-mail. “In looking back, it might have worked if these organizations hadn’t countered them in the spring and summer.”

Others in the Romney campaign, speaking on the condition of anonymity, were bitter that the super PACs didn’t do more to defend the Republican nominee and his business record, particularly in the late summer, when the campaign had run through its own primary-season funding.

“We didn’t have any air cover,” lamented one senior adviser.

That, Rove suggested, was the result of a missed signal.

The law forbids super PACs from coordinating with candidates, so it sets up an interaction that Rove compares to playing bridge, a game in which players make their moves based on cues from their partners.

“We can’t talk to the campaigns,” he said. “But we’ve got to understand what the candidate’s message is by closely following their public statements and campaign activities, do a lot of research to understand what the weaknesses of their opponents are, and read the tea leaves.”

In July, after Obama and his allies began pounding Romney’s record at the private equity firm Bain Capital, Crossroads spent $9.3 million on ads in nine states, in which a female narrator asked: “What happened to Barack Obama? The press and even Democrats say his attacks on Mitt Romney’s business record are misleading, unfair and untrue.”

The response from the Romney campaign? Radio silence, which the Crossroads team read to mean the strategists in Boston did not believe engaging on that issue was important. So Crossroads quit running the spots.

Another lapse, in the view of some, was Crossroads’s failure to air positive ads that would acquaint voters with Romney’s biography and his achievements.

“They ran basically the same ad over and over. They were working from a theory of the case that turned out to be extraordinarily flawed,” said Obama adviser Anita Dunn. “Their theory was that making it a referendum on Obama’s stewardship of the economy was all they had to do.”

Rove’s reputation for seeing the Next Big Thing (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1009916,00.html) in politics goes back to the late 1970s, when he arrived in Texas to set up a direct-mail operation. At the time, Republicans held only one statewide elected office; when he left in 2001, Republicans were in all 29 of them — and most of those officials had at one time or another been Rove’s clients.

When Rove started touting the prospects of George W. Bush in the late 1980s, the future governor and president was a failed oilman with little more than his famous last name going for him. Rove sold his business and moved to Washington with Bush, becoming so instrumental in his 2004 reelection that the president memorably dubbed him “the architect.”

The idea for Crossroads was born shortly after the 2008 election, when Rove wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal lamenting the fact that the Republicans had no equivalent to the alliance of organized labor and liberal interest groups that had spent $194 million on independent advertising for Democrats during the previous two years.

The next day, Rove recalled, he heard from former Republican chairman Ed Gillespie, who said, “Great idea. What are we going to do about it?”

As they talked to potential donors, Rove said, they realized “there was just a generalized sense that too much of this kind of activity was basically of, by and for the consultants. Donors said, ‘Consultants set these things up, pay a commission to fundraisers, hire themselves to do the work and pay themselves too much.’ ”

“Major donors said, ‘We write checks to these groups, but we’re not enthusiastic, given how they are going about their business,’ ” Rove said.

He and Gillespie also began sounding out the Senate Republican leadership, which recommended Law, a former aide to Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), to run it. The two talked him into the job, though it meant that Law had to leave a far more lucrative post as general counsel at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

In January 2010, the Supreme Court lifted the restrictions on political contributions by corporations and unions, a move that campaign finance experts say also spawned the growth of super PACs, by giving a green light to big contributions from individuals. Rove insists that Crossroads could and would have happened even without that decision.

In April, Rove and Gillespie invited representatives of 18 conservative groups to a lunch of chicken pot pie at Rove’s Weaver Terrace home and unveiled their idea for a coordinated effort.

“You could tell there was a lot of skepticism,” Rove recalled. “It was palpable.”

That was until they met again the following month and, at Law’s suggestion, passed around their $45 million budget. They explained which Senate races they wanted to become involved in, their polling budget and the amount of advertising they could buy.

“It was, like, jaw dropping. You could just sort of see people saying, ‘What is going on?’ But it helped set in motion a wonderful collegial process,” Rove said.

In the 2010 midterm election, “we were able to make sure we weren’t running ads on top of each other. We were coordinating on message. We arrived at an agreed-upon list of congressional races in priority order,” he recalled.

They tried running a get-out-the-vote operation in Las Vegas that year, Rove said, but discovered they couldn’t do it as economically or efficiently as a political party could.

Rove boasts that Crossroads remains an efficient operation.

He noted it has a relatively small staff of 19 and said it pays its ad makers only 3 percent of the amount spent, the bottom in an industry where 10 and 15 percent fees used to be common. Ninety-five cents out of every dollar that Crossroads spends “goes onto the target,” he said.

And his wealthy donors? “They all went into this eyes wide open,” Rove said, “and their attitude is, beat them next time.”

HolyHandgernade
11-11-2012, 03:17 PM
I talked to a co-worker who's brother is a political analyst in Iowa. He said the only reason the Reb. millionaires money didn't work was because of the hubris of the millionaires themselves. They wanted to keep spending money on things they thought were going to influence the election instead of listening to the advisors who were telling them how they should spend the money. He said the most outstanding example was the Benghazi situation. Advisors were telling them that the voters put this as a low priority issue when deciding who to vote for, but the millionaires were convinced that is where they wanted the emphasis going.

Baby Lee
11-11-2012, 03:20 PM
Good idea to put this in its own thread and erase it from your previous spanking.

Shaid
11-11-2012, 03:25 PM
I completely agree that Super Pacs shouldn't exist. Money and politics don't mix. We all know that it's too easy for corruption to take hold once money is involved. I'd be very happy with a constitutional amendment on Elections to ensure we stay a country where individuals matter. If we aren't careful we'll end up with a plutocracy. One could argue we're already there.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 03:32 PM
I completely agree that Super Pacs shouldn't exist. Money and politics don't mix. We all know that it's too easy for corruption to take hold once money is involved. I'd be very happy with a constitutional amendment on Elections to ensure we stay a country where individuals matter. If we aren't careful we'll end up with a plutocracy. One could argue we're already there.

We already have a plutocracy. But I oppose an Amendment that weakens the Bill of Rights. The leads to a worse tyranny.

Shaid
11-11-2012, 03:43 PM
We already have a plutocracy. But I oppose an Amendment that weakens the Bill of Rights. The leads to a worse tyranny.

So you wouldn't support limiting the ability to buy elections? Seems like that would cause more tyranny than allowing individuals to have greater say.

mlyonsd
11-11-2012, 03:57 PM
So basically not only should millionaires pay for everything they should also be wearing muzzles. Got it.

HolyHandgernade
11-11-2012, 03:59 PM
So basically not only should millionaires pay for everything they should also be wearing muzzles. Got it.

Yeah, because millionaires pay for everything. :shake:

Shaid
11-11-2012, 03:59 PM
So basically not only should millionaires pay for everything they should also be wearing muzzles. Got it.

Donate but there should be a limit. Maybe a million dollars for example? That's definitely still getting your voice out there.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 04:16 PM
Donate but there should be a limit.

I thought that's what the Citizen's United decision said was a limitation on free speech. I think it is myself. The left wants an amendment to end this but that curbs the Bill of Rights. It's a bad idea.
Disclosure is the best thing to do.

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 04:19 PM
So basically not only should millionaires pay for everything they should also be wearing muzzles. Got it.

This is golden.

Pure mlyonsd.

Billionaires should not be able to pour unlimited funds into elections = billionaires should have no political speech rights.

Life must be so simple for your binary method of rationalization.

Shaid
11-11-2012, 04:21 PM
I thought that's what the Citizen's United decision said was a limitation on free speech. I think it is myself. The left wants an amendment to end this but that curbs the Bill of Rights. It's a bad idea.
Disclosure is the best thing to do.

ok, then what about corporations donating? I just can't see how either side spending this much money is good for our country. It just leads to pandering to the rich instead of being there for the people. It's the opposite of what this country should be.

Baby Lee
11-11-2012, 04:23 PM
This is golden.

Pure mlyonsd.

Billionaires should not be able to pour unlimited funds into elections = billionaires should have no political speech rights.

Life must be so simple for your binary method of rationalization.

Wonder how that compares with the ever so nuanced dichotomy between 'free speech' which of course must be protected in a free society, and 'unfettered expression of a point of view' which is poisonous and must be regulated.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 04:23 PM
ok, then what about corporations donating? I just can't see how either side spending this much money is good for our country. It just leads to pandering to the rich instead of being there for the people. It's the opposite of what this country should be.

Are you making a class warfare argument then? If so, it didn't hurt Obama who is supposed to be for taxing the wealthy. It didn't happen.
And how is this any different than a man of the people buying votes for them at the expense of others? Seems to me that this could also be a check and balance against demagogues like Obama. Again, though, it didn't hurt the left in the presidential election.

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 04:27 PM
Wonder how that compares with the ever so nuanced dichotomy between 'free speech' which of course must be protected in a free society, and 'unfettered expression of a point of view' which is poisonous and must be regulated.

All free speech is not created equal.

Some speech is restricted, despite the principle of being able to say whatever, because it creates too much damage in our society.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is the most basic example.

Buying the entire political system to do your bidding against the will of the rest of America is a more egregious one.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 04:31 PM
All free speech is not created equal.
No but if it's political speech it is legal. For instance I don't think what you or your side says are good ideas or have merit. But it's legal for you to say it.

Some speech is restricted, despite the principle of being able to say whatever, because it creates too much damage in our society.
You have it wrong. It's political speech the Framers were really protecting—not obscenity, pornograpy or slander which harms another's reputation and result in damage like job losses or something.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is the most basic example.
Yeah, well, as I was saying you have your categories mixed up. Yelling fire is not political speech either.

Buying the entire political system to do your bidding against the will of the rest of America is a more egregious one.

In your opinion.

Baby Lee
11-11-2012, 04:32 PM
All free speech is not created equal.

Some speech is restricted, despite the principle of being able to say whatever, because it creates too much damage in our society.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is the most basic example.

Buying the entire political system to do your bidding against the will of the rest of America is a more egregious one.

Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You neither like nor understand free speech. Fortunately, the 1st Amendment pre-exists, and will far outlast, you.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 04:33 PM
Yeah, because millionaires pay for everything. :shake:

How many millionaires donated to the Obama campaign in 2008? He was mostly funded by Goldman Sachs.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 04:33 PM
Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You neither like nor understand free speech. Fortunately, the 1st Amendment pre-exists, and will far outlast, you.

:clap:

mlyonsd
11-11-2012, 04:44 PM
This is golden.

Pure mlyonsd.

Billionaires should not be able to pour unlimited funds into elections = billionaires should have no political speech rights.

Life must be so simple for your binary method of rationalization.

The rich people spent a ton of money in an election. Got it.

They lost. Still got it. The system 'worked'.

I don't understand the purpose of the thread other than you trying to sell the idea people voicing their opinion with the resources they have available undemocratic.

Maybe people with large yards shouldn't be allowed to stick more than one political sign in it.

stonedstooge
11-11-2012, 04:53 PM
Rich bastards should just give it (the millions) to the politicians after the election cause they surely know how to spend it more wisely

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 04:57 PM
The rich people spent a ton of money in an election. Got it.

They lost. Still got it. The system 'worked'.



Precisely.:clap:

mlyonsd
11-11-2012, 04:58 PM
You neither like nor understand free speech. Fortunately, the 1st Amendment pre-exists, and will far outlast, you.
Don't count on it. He's working hard on it.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 04:59 PM
It's like their Fairness Doctrine in the media. They have to censor.

Baby Lee
11-11-2012, 05:08 PM
The rich people spent a ton of money in an election. Got it.

They lost. Still got it. The system 'worked'.

I don't understand the purpose of the thread other than you trying to sell the idea people voicing their opinion with the resources they have available undemocratic.

Maybe people with large yards shouldn't be allowed to stick more than one political sign in it.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, you don't GET IT.

The Repubs OWE the rich now, if they don't deliver what the right want, the rich will just give money to the Dems and then the DEMS will become the party of the rich, low taxes and laissez faire capitalism.

IT'S JUST THAT EASY!!!

mlyonsd
11-11-2012, 05:20 PM
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, you don't GET IT.

The Repubs OWE the rich now, if they don't deliver what the right want, the rich will just give money to the Dems and then the DEMS will become the party of the rich, low taxes and laissez faire capitalism.

IT'S JUST THAT EASY!!!
Whoa whoa whoa....slow down. Way too much.

I can only think in binary.

Baby Lee
11-11-2012, 05:24 PM
Whoa whoa whoa....slow down. Way too much.

I can only think in binary.

Beep beep, . . . boop!!!

Carlota69
11-11-2012, 05:36 PM
One day, about a week before the election, I was at home watching the 5 o'clock news,and of course all the political ads were on, and they were annoying as usual. One ad for Romeny lying about whatever regarding obama, the very next for obama, lying about whatever regarding romney. But then a Super Pac ad came on and it was showing dead fetuses and loudly proclaiming that Obama is a baby killer. For me, this was way over the line. What if I had children sitting next to Me? And it made me think about the Truth in Advertising law. Kellogg's cant run ads saying Corn flakes cures cancer because it's simply not true. Why don't political ads have to abide by the same laws? They are Advtisments. I see that the ads approved by the candidates try to abide by those rules by citing wherevere they got their info, but these Super Pac ads where one guy, or group of people just buy ad time and say whatever they want should have to Abide b the Truth in Advertising law. And Some decency as Well. Calling the President a baby killer and showing dead fetuses during dinner time is disgusting and uncalled for.

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 05:37 PM
Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Should all speech be unlimited?

No?

So should all political speech be unlimited?

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 05:40 PM
The rich people spent a ton of money in an election. Got it.

They lost. Still got it. The system 'worked'.

I don't understand the purpose of the thread other than you trying to sell the idea people voicing their opinion with the resources they have available undemocratic.

Swing and a miss.

I'll highlight the part of the OP I'd like you to comment on.

Watching the election results, and how Karl Rove spent $300 million through his super PAC on candidates that all lost, it's easy to forgive the non-role super PACs seemed to have played in deciding the 2012 election.

The thing is, coming to that conclusion is short-sighted. It's incorrect.

Because donating tons and tons of dollars isn't necessarily about winning. It's about investing in a party (http://www.mattglassman.com/?p=3376) that will fight for you when the politicking starts.

Because a political donation of, let's say, a million dollars, isn't just a one-time purchase. It's communicating that I could give you a million more in the future. Therefore the party that ends up reaping that benefit (and both parties now rely on this (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=263671)) must now slave away for your demands, lest they risk those nine-figure donation checks going to the other party.

Thoughts?

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 05:40 PM
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, you don't GET IT.

The Repubs OWE the rich now, if they don't deliver what the right want, the rich will just give money to the Dems and then the DEMS will become the party of the rich, low taxes and laissez faire capitalism.

IT'S JUST THAT EASY!!!

Swing and a miss.

Baby Lee
11-11-2012, 05:43 PM
Should all speech be unlimited?

No?

So should all political speech be unlimited?

Turing approves.

EDIT: shit, 'shun has fallen into his SWaM Tourettes.

Check back later for signs of rationality.

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 05:45 PM
Check back later for signs of rationality.

Should all political speech be unlimited?

Ebolapox
11-11-2012, 05:46 PM
eh, both parties have super PACs. both sides are bought and sold by the almighty dollar and those who have a lot of them.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 05:48 PM
Should all political speech be unlimited?Citizens United was decided on "electioneering communications" .

The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office...

The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 05:48 PM
eh, both parties have super PACs. both sides are bought and sold by the almighty dollar and those who have a lot of them.

That's why this needs to change.

That's exactly why this needs to change.

Ebolapox
11-11-2012, 06:03 PM
That's why this needs to change.

That's exactly why this needs to change.

precisely. however, keep in mind, obama likely never becomes president or even goes into politics unless the political machine and the money behind it convinces him to do so. believe it.

HonestChieffan
11-11-2012, 06:06 PM
Should all political speech be unlimited?

Freedom of speech. Limited it is no longer free. This is not negotiable.

HolyHandgernade
11-11-2012, 06:29 PM
Freedom of speech. Limited it is no longer free. This is not negotiable.

I'm not for limiting, but I am for attributing. If you're wanting to go out and spend money to spew bullshit, people should know exactly who is responsible. Otherwise, all you've done is set up a "real life" internet board where "tough guys" get to hide behind their anonymity.

They want to say whatever they want but not "risk" offending clients and customers. That's just cowardice, it has nothing to do with one's freedom of speech.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 06:37 PM
I'm not for limiting, but I am for attributing.

Okay, so what is your solution? Are you saying you want disclosure and allow it? Disclosure was upheld by the SC.

patteeu
11-11-2012, 07:54 PM
Barack Obama shouldn't have been allowed to spend $1 billion to influence the election. It's anti-democratic. Right, Direckshun?

J Diddy
11-11-2012, 07:58 PM
Barack Obama shouldn't have been allowed to spend $1 billion to influence the election. It's anti-democratic. Right, Direckshun?

Neither side should.

patteeu
11-11-2012, 08:10 PM
Neither side should.

Right, they shouldn't be able to spend more than the local grocery bagger or tanning salon attendant can afford!

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 08:23 PM
Barack Obama shouldn't have been allowed to spend $1 billion to influence the election. It's anti-democratic. Right, Direckshun?

Neither side should.

Exactly.

Direckshun
11-11-2012, 08:23 PM
Right, they shouldn't be able to spend more than the local grocery bagger or tanning salon attendant can afford!

Swing and a miss.

J Diddy
11-11-2012, 08:24 PM
Right, they shouldn't be able to spend more than the local grocery bagger or tanning salon attendant can afford!

They should have a set amount and go with it. It shouldn't be an extended Hollywood production.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 03:36 AM
Swing and a miss.

Why should he be allowed to spend more than that? Why isn't that undemocratic?

patteeu
11-12-2012, 03:38 AM
They should have a set amount and go with it. It shouldn't be an extended Hollywood production.

Sounds pretty arbitrary to me. On what principle are you basing this?

whoman69
11-12-2012, 05:45 AM
Money is not speech, its influence. The whole premise of the SCOTUS was incorrect when you call out that reality. What campaign contributions should be is money given to a candidate that you support because they have the same views as you, views they will put into policy. What Citizens United does now is that to the politician now changes his view to support the group that gives him money. They are no longer acting on what they think are the best interests of the country, only the best interests of those that pay to keep him in office.

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 06:14 AM
Sounds pretty arbitrary to me. On what principle are you basing this?

Perhaps it is, but it's a whole lot simpler.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 06:51 AM
Money is not speech, its influence. The whole premise of the SCOTUS was incorrect when you call out that reality. What campaign contributions should be is money given to a candidate that you support because they have the same views as you, views they will put into policy. What Citizens United does now is that to the politician now changes his view to support the group that gives him money. They are no longer acting on what they think are the best interests of the country, only the best interests of those that pay to keep him in office.

I see you don't know what Citizens United was really about. Shocking.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 06:54 AM
Perhaps it is, but it's a whole lot simpler.

There is nothing simpler than letting people spend their own money as they see fit when it comes to political speech.

penchief
11-12-2012, 07:38 AM
There is nothing simpler than letting people spend their own money as they see fit when it comes to political speech.

Then why do it anonymously? I get the whole "bribery is free speech" argument. I just don't agree with it. If one wants to exercise their free speech rights they have every right to do so without secretly donating millions to shadow organizations that work "indirectly" for political campaigns.

The epitomy of free speech is standing in the town square proclaiming one's beliefs. Anonymous dontations and free speech are not the same thing.

And since when are corporations people? They're not. So why do those who operate within a corporate entity get to double dip when it comes to free speech and donations? That person has the same rights the rest of us do as citizens. And they can give under the same limitations. Why then should they also get to hide behind the banner of a corporation and give tons more than we could ever give individually?

It tilts the playing field in favor of corporations. And disempowers the average American. That is painfully obvious. All Citizens United accomplished was to define money as speech. And those with the most money have the most speech. One bank account can drown out the voices of millions.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 08:09 AM
Why should he be allowed to spend more than that? Why isn't that undemocratic?

In my ideal world, we go to public financing, which means a fraction of every person's taxes go to a predetermined amount campaigns can use in elections.

In my actual world, I have never made the argument that political donations should be limited to what grocery baggers are capable of making.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 08:10 AM
There is nothing simpler than letting people spend their own money as they see fit when it comes to political speech.

Simpler != better.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 08:13 AM
Then why do it anonymously? I get the whole "bribery is free speech" argument. I just don't agree with it. If one wants to exercise their free speech rights they have every right to do so without secretly donating millions to shadow organizations that work "indirectly" for political campaigns.

The epitomy of free speech is standing in the town square proclaiming one's beliefs. Anonymous dontations and free speech are not the same thing.

I'm in favor of as much transparency as possible, but if Apple decides to buy some heavy advertising in opposition to a candidate who wants to ban tablet computers, there aren't really any specific contributors to identify.

That said, the decision makers at these public corporations are well known. The topic of this thread identifies Karl Rove as the driving force behind the Crossroads corp.

And since when are corporations people?

Since the concept of the corporation was created. We tax them like people (albeit under a separate tax code). We allow them to enter into contracts like people. We hold them liable like people. It's the essence of the corporate concept.

They're not. So why do those who operate within a corporate entity get to double dip when it comes to free speech and donations? That person has the same rights the rest of us do as citizens. And they can give under the same limitations. Why then should they also get to hide behind the banner of a corporation and give tons more than we could ever give individually?

It tilts the playing field in favor of corporations. And disempowers the average American. That is painfully obvious. All Citizens United accomplished was to define money as speech. And those with the most money have the most speech. One bank account can drown out the voices of millions.

First of all, they can't give more than individuals.

Second, the Superpac concept would go away altogether if we eliminated individual contribution limits.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 08:17 AM
In my ideal world, we go to public financing, which means a fraction of every person's taxes go to a predetermined amount campaigns can use in elections.

In my actual world, I have never made the argument that political donations should be limited to what grocery baggers are capable of making.

You made the argument that the ability of super rich people to out spend others in the political arena is undemocratic. The logical extension of that argument is that it's undemocratic as long as anyone, including grocery baggers, can be out spent. If your argument isn't just an arbitrary attack on the 1%, then let's hear your logical distinction between what you call undemocratic and the grocery bagger extension.

ChiefsCountry
11-12-2012, 08:18 AM
In my ideal world, we go to public financing, which means a fraction of every person's taxes go to a predetermined amount campaigns can use in elections.

In my actual world, I have never made the argument that political donations should be limited to what grocery baggers are capable of making.

Lets use public dollars for canadiates. You liberals are fucking stupid. Let the idiots blow all the money they want on it.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 08:19 AM
Simpler != better.

I agree, but that seemed to be J Diddy's central argument.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 08:26 AM
You made the argument that the ability of super rich people to out spend others in the political arena is undemocratic. The logical extension of that argument is that it's undemocratic as long as anyone, including grocery baggers, can be out spent. If your argument isn't just an arbitrary attack on the 1%, then let's hear your logical distinction between what you call undemocratic and the grocery bagger extension.

That's a really good question, and it gets back to the heart of the OP's issue.

The 1% can fundamentally raise huge dollar amounts extremely casually that take gargantuan efforts from the rest of the electorate to match, if they can be matched at all.

That puts our government under the 1%'s thumbs. See the OP on this.

(And I'd actually expand that to the top 5%, but let's crawl before we can walk, shall we.)

The same cannot be said for any of the non-rich in this country. If we put the kabash on superPACs, and put maximums on campaign donations to something manageable like $2,000 a person or $4,000 a family, than you can't have a small collection of rich people casually, drastically outraising the rest of the electorate should the electorate fail to put forth some massive effort to keep up.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 08:26 AM
I agree, but that seemed to be J Diddy's central argument.

Fair point.

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 08:34 AM
There is nothing simpler than letting people spend their own money as they see fit when it comes to political speech.

I would be inclined to disagree. Candidates should be selected in a vacuum, not because of an ad or series of ads.

It is careful to examine what we're trying to attain here. The person who runs the best campaign or the person more suited to run the country?

By simpler I mean the simplest way to choose the best person for the job. It gets more complicated when one person has more money than an entire town and spends that money to sway millions. Whose interests are best at heart here, the country or that guy?

patteeu
11-12-2012, 08:38 AM
That's a really good question, and it gets back to the heart of the OP's issue.

The 1% can fundamentally raise huge dollar amounts extremely casually that take gargantuan efforts from the rest of the electorate to match, if they can be matched at all.

That puts our government under the 1%'s thumbs. See the OP on this.

(And I'd actually expand that to the top 5%, but let's crawl before we can walk, shall we.)

The same cannot be said for any of the non-rich in this country. If we put the kabash on superPACs, and put maximums on campaign donations to something manageable like $2,000 a person or $4,000 a family, than you can't have a small collection of rich people casually, drastically outraising the rest of the electorate should the electorate fail to put forth some massive effort to keep up.

I don't know any grocery baggers who can afford to donate $2000. And forget about it if there's more than one campaign going on at once. It still sounds undemocratic to me (in the way you've used the term).

I think I'd rather stick with free speech.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 08:40 AM
I don't know any grocery baggers who can afford to donate $2000. And forget about it if there's more than one campaign going on at once. It still sounds undemocratic to me (in the way you've used the term).

Again, my ideal is public financing.

But if private donations is how we must go, it's far easier for the poor and the middle class to use their advantage in population to keep up and even surpass the wealthy if we cap what you can donate at something reasonable like $2,000.

It allows the power of the many to be better heard, which is far more democratic than unlimited campaign spending by billionaires.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 08:41 AM
I would be inclined to disagree. Candidates should be selected in a vacuum, not because of an ad or series of ads.

It is careful to examine what we're trying to attain here. The person who runs the best campaign or the person more suited to run the country?

By simpler I mean the simplest way to choose the best person for the job. It gets more complicated when one person has more money than an entire town and spends that money to sway millions. Whose interests are best at heart here, the country or that guy?

I don't think your approach is a good way to select the best person for the job. Since we aren't likely to be able to agree on that, why not err on the side of free speech?

ChiefsCountry
11-12-2012, 08:50 AM
Again why should tax payer money go to these clowns to get them elected?

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 08:53 AM
Again why should tax payer money go to these clowns to get them elected?

The idea is to free the parties of control by the few haves to the disadvantage of the many have-nots.

As a candidate, if you know your financing is already set for your next election by the time you first step foot in your office, and that that financing will be equivalent to what your opponent receives, then you do not have to pander to the super-wealthy for financing like you have to now.

ChiefsCountry
11-12-2012, 08:56 AM
The idea is to free the parties of control by the few haves to the disadvantage of the many have-nots.

As a candidate, if you know your financing is already set for your next election by the time you first step foot in your office, and that that financing will be equivalent to what your opponent receives, then you do not have to pander to the super-wealthy for financing like you have to now.

Classic liberal. Looks good on paper, total complete fail in real life.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 08:56 AM
Looks good on paper, total complete fail in real life.

Because?

ChiefsCountry
11-12-2012, 08:59 AM
Because?

Because our tax money shouldn't go to get these idiots elected. Its a stupid fucking idea.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 09:03 AM
Because our tax money shouldn't go to get these idiots elected.

If our tax money should go to anything, it should be to ensure that our elected decision-makers are not whoring themselves out to a handful of billionaires to the disadvantage of everybody else.

ChiefsCountry
11-12-2012, 09:04 AM
If our tax money should go to anything, it should be to ensure that our elected decision-makers are not whoring themselves out to a handful of billionaires to the disadvantage of everybody else.

Life isn't fair, big fucking deal.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 09:06 AM
Life isn't fair.

That's all fine and dandy when it's stitched on your pillow cushions and everything, but we're talking about criminal degrees of inequality that preventable measures can actually, tangibly limit.

I say, we take the measures.

ChiefsCountry
11-12-2012, 09:08 AM
That's all fine and dandy when it's stitched on your pillow cushions and everything, but we're talking about criminal degrees of inequality that preventable measures can actually, tangibly limit.

I say, we take the measures.

:rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 09:10 AM
If our tax money should go to anything, it should be to ensure that our elected decision-makers are not whoring themselves out to a handful of billionaires to the disadvantage of everybody else.

What about the other side whoring themselves out to parasites to the disadvantage of everybody else? Or shall I say those who produce?
Works both ways.

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 09:11 AM
I don't think your approach is a good way to select the best person for the job. Since we aren't likely to be able to agree on that, why not err on the side of free speech?

With all due respect, I don't see it as free speech. I see it as bought speech.

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 09:12 AM
Classic liberal. Looks good on paper, total complete fail in real life.

How would you know, when has it been practiced?

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 09:13 AM
With all due respect, I don't see it as free speech. I see it as bought speech.

Some people have more speech than others...

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 09:13 AM
Because?


Garble, garble, I'm a right winger and garble garble because a classic liberal proposed it.

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 09:14 AM
Some people have more speech than others...


I hope someday I shall acquire enough wealth to gain more speech.

ChiefsCountry
11-12-2012, 09:15 AM
Garble, garble, I'm a right winger and garble garble because a classic liberal proposed it.

No its fucking stupid using our tax money on these clowns for election purposes.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 09:17 AM
No its ****ing stupid using our tax money on these clowns for election purposes.

We already spend money to keep elections conducted as free and as fair as possible.

Doesn't cost much more to make sure the candidates can campaign and later govern free of undue influence by billionaires.

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 09:19 AM
No its ****ing stupid using our tax money on these clowns for election purposes.

How is it any different?

patteeu
11-12-2012, 11:41 AM
Again, my ideal is public financing.

But if private donations is how we must go, it's far easier for the poor and the middle class to use their advantage in population to keep up and even surpass the wealthy if we cap what you can donate at something reasonable like $2,000.

It allows the power of the many to be better heard, which is far more democratic than unlimited campaign spending by billionaires.

It just seems so arbitrary. It's like you don't think the grocery bagger's voice is worth listening to unless he's moonlighting as a lawyer.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 11:42 AM
The idea is to free the parties of control by the few haves to the disadvantage of the many have-nots.

As a candidate, if you know your financing is already set for your next election by the time you first step foot in your office, and that that financing will be equivalent to what your opponent receives, then you do not have to pander to the super-wealthy for financing like you have to now.

Would you also silence giant news organizations (or limit them to $2000 worth of coverage)? Or is it OK if the Rupert Murdochs of the world can dramatically outspend all of those who don't have the luxury of a news network in their portfolio?

patteeu
11-12-2012, 11:44 AM
If our tax money should go to anything, it should be to ensure that our elected decision-makers are not whoring themselves out to a handful of billionaires to the disadvantage of everybody else.

Can we assume that Obama is more whored-out than any POTUS in history since more money backed his candidacy than ever before?

HonestChieffan
11-12-2012, 11:44 AM
It just seems so arbitrary. It's like you don't think the grocery bagger's voice is worth listening to unless he's moonlighting as a lawyer.

Grocery boy may well be a lawyer with no lawyer job. Lots of that going around.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 11:47 AM
With all due respect, I don't see it as free speech. I see it as bought speech.

Yes, I understand your anti-Jeffersonian view. It's pretty un-American.

If Bill Gates decided that he wanted to open a newspaper and do all the writing himself, including writing about his pet political causes. Would you want to shut his paper down during election season or would you recognize that as a free speech issue?

patteeu
11-12-2012, 11:47 AM
Grocery boy may well be a lawyer with no lawyer job. Lots of that going around.

LMAO Good point.

Hoover
11-12-2012, 12:23 PM
Now that I know Direckshun is a communist, I don't know if I will enjoy his draft threads as much as before.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 12:25 PM
Now that I know Direckshun is a communist, I don't know if I will enjoy his draft threads as much as before.

His main reason for liking the NFL is it's revenue sharing model.

Hoover
11-12-2012, 12:25 PM
So if funding entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Part D, College Loan Program, and now Obamacare wasn't going to bankrupt the country, taxpayers should also pay for political attack ads? The hell with that.

And by the way, it will never happen. Both sides like raising money for campaigns.

Hoover
11-12-2012, 12:26 PM
His main reason for liking the NFL is it's revenue sharing model.
but you would think he would be into baseball with its luxury tax system.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 12:28 PM
It just seems so arbitrary. It's like you don't think the grocery bagger's voice is worth listening to unless he's moonlighting as a lawyer.

How do you figure?

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 12:31 PM
Would you also silence giant news organizations (or limit them to $2000 worth of coverage)? Or is it OK if the Rupert Murdochs of the world can dramatically outspend all of those who don't have the luxury of a news network in their portfolio?

Media outlets do present a fascinating wrinkle to this discussion. Because even if we embrace public financing, the superwealthy can (and have) buy up the major media outlets and dominate them that way.

That said, I don't particularly have a great set of answers there yet. I have a few ideas, but they are still in their infancy.

I never believed that public financing was the answer, anyway. Because public financing would just limit (or outlaw) hard money, while soft money would still be pretty much untouched. I've argued that public financing in an answer, not the answer.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 12:32 PM
Can we assume that Obama is more whored-out than any POTUS in history since more money backed his candidacy than ever before?

I don't know exactly how you'd measure that.

I can say the money he needed to raise is a travesty.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 12:32 PM
His main reason for liking the NFL is it's revenue sharing model.

LMAO

I can't tell you how often I bring that up with my conservative football-loving friends.

mlyonsd
11-12-2012, 12:39 PM
Swing and a miss.

I'll highlight the part of the OP I'd like you to comment on.







Thoughts?
I think your motive for this thread is to disguise permanently altering the political landscape In the dems favor as being a fairness issue.

And you picked an odd time to so it seeing as the guy you're bitching about got spanked.

Doing what you suggest only benefits one party. End of story. The wealthy might have more resources to give for political donations but their vote still counts the same as a poor man's.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 12:40 PM
How do you figure?

Because the (successful) lawyer can more easily afford his maximum $2000 worth of speech than the grocery bagger. The same argument you used to limit a zillionaire's contribution to $2000 so he couldn't out-influence those of us who can only afford a more modest contribution.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 12:41 PM
I think your motive for this thread is to disguise permanently altering the political landscape In the dems favor as being a fairness issue.

Snore.

Doing what you suggest only benefits one party. End of story. The wealthy might have more resources to give for political donations but their vote still counts the same as a poor man's.

So, no. You don't have a response to the OP.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 12:42 PM
I think your motive for this thread is to disguise permanently altering the political landscape In the dems favor as being a fairness issue.

And you picked an odd time to so it seeing as the guy you're bitching about got spanked.

Doing what you suggest only benefits one party. End of story. The wealthy might have more resources to give for political donations but their vote still counts the same as a poor man's.

It's odd how he's so adamantly against checking IDs at polling sites, but when it comes to campaign finance he's ready to carve a huge loophole into the first amendment.

trndobrd
11-12-2012, 12:43 PM
Again, my ideal is public financing.

But if private donations is how we must go, it's far easier for the poor and the middle class to use their advantage in population to keep up and even surpass the wealthy if we cap what you can donate at something reasonable like $2,000.

It allows the power of the many to be better heard, which is far more democratic than unlimited campaign spending by billionaires.


There were two presidential candidates in 2008 who promised to accept the fundraising limits associated with public financing. One broke his promise, set records for fundraising and spending, out raised his opponent in Wall Street money, and won the presidency.

That's the new model.

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 12:43 PM
Yes, I understand your anti-Jeffersonian view. It's pretty un-American.

If Bill Gates decided that he wanted to open a newspaper and do all the writing himself, including writing about his pet political causes. Would you want to shut his paper down during election season or would you recognize that as a free speech issue?


I would consider controlling what's in the media is a free speech issue for sure, however that's not what I'm talking about. I am saying that one mans voice shouldn't be drowned out by a guy who's yelling louder.

Furthermore, this pining for the founding fathers and the way they run elections is entertaining. First the machine was really simple because white male protestant property owners got to participate and Second it's a little more evolved then that now.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 12:43 PM
Because the (successful) lawyer can more easily afford his maximum $2000 worth of speech than the grocery bagger. The same argument you used to limit a zillionaire's contribution to $2000 so he couldn't out-influence those of us who can only afford a more modest contribution.

Yep. However, it's much, much easier for the middle- and lower-class to band together organizations and fundraising operations to match the wealthy's attempts to buy the election with $2000 donations. When you cap the limit at something like that, the many can make their voice heard much louder.

When you blow all limits off, then the voices of the many can be snubbed (and are snubbed) in order to secure the favor of a few million-dollar donors that can casually raise absurd amounts of money that the lower classes have to break their backs to match.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 12:44 PM
It's odd how he's so adamantly against checking IDs at polling sites, but when it comes to campaign finance he's ready to carve a huge loophole into the first amendment.

I don't think you know what a loophole is. Nor how the first amendment works.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 12:45 PM
There were two presidential candidates in 2008 who promised to accept the fundraising limits associated with public financing. One broke his promise, set records for fundraising and spending, out raised his opponent in Wall Street money, and won the presidency.

That's the new model.

Agreed.

Though... correct me if I'm wrong, but McCain refused public financing too.

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 12:45 PM
Agreed.

Though... correct me if I'm wrong, but McCain refused public financing too.

I believe you are wrong.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 12:49 PM
Hm.

http://factcheck.org/2008/06/mccain-and-public-financing/

Q: Did John McCain borrow money using public financing as collateral?

A: Lawyers for McCain and Fidelity & Trust Bank say he did not. The DNC says he did and should not have been allowed to withdraw from public financing during the primaries. The Federal Election Commission may have the final word.

FULL QUESTION

It was my understanding that John McCain took out a loan for the primary based on his participation in the fall campaign and the chair of the FEC ruled that he had to participate in the fall campaign even though he overspent in the primary. Maybe I’m not stating this properly. Can you respond?

FULL ANSWER


The full question isn’t stated correctly: Our reader is actually referring to circumstances surrounding Sen. John McCain’s participation in public financing for the primary campaign. Candidates that use public financing in campaigns must abide by various Federal Election Commission rules, which we explained in a previous Ask FactCheck, while those using private funds can raise and spend as much as they want.

In August 2007, McCain became the first presidential candidate of the 2007-2008 presidential campaign to be declared eligible for public financing by the FEC, although it wasn’t clear at the time whether his financially troubled campaign would actually use the money.

Then, late last year McCain’s campaign took out loans totaling $4 million (an initial $3 million loan and then another for $1 million) from the Maryland-based Fidelity & Trust Bank. The Washington Post reported that in order to secure the additional loan, McCain pledged "incoming but unprocessed contributions as collateral." According to the Post, when the bank asked what would happen if the campaign didn’t go well, Trevor Potter, McCain’s attorney, said McCain could "reapply in the future for federal matching funds, and would agree to use the FEC certifications for those funds as collateral." And the Associated Press reported that the loan agreement "did not include McCain’s right to the public funds," but that it did require him to reapply for public financing if he withdrew and lost in early primary contests.

Matthew S. Bergman and Scott E. Thomas, outside counsel for Fidelity & Trust, wrote a letter to Potter in late February, saying that public financing hadn’t been considered as collateral:

Counsel for Fidelity & Trust: After the bank determined that adequate assurances of loan repayment existed without obtaining a pledge of any certification for matching funds, the loan terms were carefully drafted to exclude from the bank’s collateral any matching funds certification (so as to assure that the Committee (McCain campaign) retained the flexibility to withdraw from the program in accordance with the principles of Advisory Opinion 2003-35). The fact that there was no pledge of any certification for matching funds is further evidenced by the fact that the covenants were included within the loan documents that expressly required the Committee to pledge, in the future, and if (and only if) certain specified events occurred after the Committee were to withdraw from the program (such as the Committee’s re-entry into the program), future certifications of matching funds as collateral for the loan. It is our understanding that, to date, none of these events have occurred.

All of this had become an issue because earlier that month, on Feb. 6, McCain had written to the FEC, notifying it of his intent to withdraw from the matching funds program. McCain, who had done well in the early primaries and experienced a financial turnaround, said that no funds had been paid by the Department of the Treasury and the certification of funds technically had not been pledged as security for private financing, two important factors necessary for withdrawal. FEC rules say that if a candidate uses federal funds as collateral for a personal loan, then they are required to remain in the federal funding program. In response, FEC Chairman David Mason said that the commission would consider withdrawing the certification provided that McCain explained in further detail the conditions of the loan he received. Mason also notified McCain that the commission could not vote on the matter since it lacked a quorum at the time and that a formal decision would have to wait. But the McCain campaign said that it didn’t need the FEC’s approval to withdraw from public financing.

Further complicating matters for McCain, the Democratic National Committee has decided to file a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court to require the FEC to launch an investigation into whether McCain violated the conditions of the public funds program. The DNC says it believes he did. It filed a complaint back in February, but the FEC wasn’t able to act on the matter since, with only two members, the commission lacked a quorum (it usually has six members). The DNC argued that McCain could not "unilaterally withdraw" from the matching funds program because he had signed a binding agreement with the FEC and had to abide by the conditions of it, which included the approval of the FEC to withdraw. The DNC further argued that McCain "already violated a key condition for being let out of the program – pledging matching funds as collateral for a private loan." An additional concern is that McCain may have violated the conditions by spending more than the $54 million he was limited to under the program.

Will there be a ruling by the commission any time soon? On June 24, the Senate confirmed five commissioners to the FEC. This will allow the commission to return to operating status for the first time since the beginning of the year and make rulings on this and other campaign finance matters.

Direckshun
11-12-2012, 12:50 PM
Doesn't matter anyway. The argument I'm making stands whether McCain accepted public financing or not.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 02:54 PM
I would consider controlling what's in the media is a free speech issue for sure, however that's not what I'm talking about. I am saying that one mans voice shouldn't be drowned out by a guy who's yelling louder.

Furthermore, this pining for the founding fathers and the way they run elections is entertaining. First the machine was really simple because white male protestant property owners got to participate and Second it's a little more evolved then that now.

If you wouldn't limit the voice of a person who owns a media outlet, why would you limit the voice of a person who just wants to buy a little piece of it?

Our constitution has a built-in capability to evolve with the times. When people wanted to outlaw alcohol, they passed an amendment (18th). A few years later when people wanted to revoke that amendment, they passed another one (21st). If you want to revoke the 1st amendment or the part of it that deals with free speech, you should convince enough people to pass a 28th amendment doing so.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 02:56 PM
I don't think you know what a loophole is. Nor how the first amendment works.

I think I understand both well enough.

ChiefsCountry
11-12-2012, 02:58 PM
If you had the government paying for campaigns, :shake:, you would have to do it for all of them. Would you really want the taxpayers money going to the Goat ****er Party or Communitst Party or the Christian Party or the Muslim Party, every group would want in on the action.

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 03:10 PM
If you wouldn't limit the voice of a person who owns a media outlet, why would you limit the voice of a person who just wants to buy a little piece of it?

Our constitution has a built-in capability to evolve with the times. When people wanted to outlaw alcohol, they passed an amendment (18th). A few years later when people wanted to revoke that amendment, they passed another one (21st). If you want to revoke the 1st amendment or the part of it that deals with free speech, you should convince enough people to pass a 28th amendment doing so.

One problem with your theory is that not all speech is free. You are not allowed to harm another with your speech. In this case it harms all.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 03:28 PM
One problem with your theory is that not all speech is free. You are not allowed to harm another with your speech. In this case it harms all.

Like I said, that's an un-American perspective.

J Diddy
11-12-2012, 03:37 PM
Like I said, that's an un-American perspective.

Lol, okay.

mlyonsd
11-12-2012, 04:38 PM
Snore.

Why? That's exactly what the outcome of doing what you suggest will do.



So, no. You don't have a response to the OP.

Yes, I agree that donating to a particular party or candidate is investing in them. It's called free speech.

And I've already addressed this multiple times with you. The electorate spoke and this time evidently they didn't agree with the message all these rich people were trying to sell.

The system worked. That's something I've said multiple times and you haven't addressed.

whoman69
11-12-2012, 06:23 PM
If you had the government paying for campaigns, :shake:, you would have to do it for all of them. Would you really want the taxpayers money going to the Goat ****er Party or Communitst Party or the Christian Party or the Muslim Party, every group would want in on the action.

You'd have to qualify for public funds.

patteeu
11-12-2012, 06:35 PM
You'd have to qualify for public funds.

Great idea. We can have the government decide how to dole out political speech licenses. What could go wrong?

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 06:44 PM
One problem with your theory is that not all speech is free. You are not allowed to harm another with your speech. In this case it harms all.

Except that's your opinion it harms all. Political speech is what the Framers were really protecting. Not ruining a private citizen's reputation with false reports whereby they lose work or something. That's never been protected. You can read the cases on where the line is drawn. Political speech is protected speech whether you think it's harmful or not.

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 06:46 PM
Like I said, that's an un-American perspective.

It's the type of thing control ideologies love most though.

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 06:48 PM
If you had the government paying for campaigns, :shake:, you would have to do it for all of them. Would you really want the taxpayers money going to the Goat ****er Party or Communitst Party or the Christian Party or the Muslim Party, every group would want in on the action.

Then the govt who could decide who can run. Whoever is in power can make sure certain opponents were kept out. Yet, this solution is coming from folks who have complained about gerrymandering. The intention is clear, they want to control the game to preserve their own power.
Very, very dangerous idea.

HonestChieffan
11-12-2012, 06:48 PM
It's the type of thing control ideologies love most though.

Control. That is the key word.

BucEyedPea
11-12-2012, 06:48 PM
You'd have to qualify for public funds.

Therein lies the problem and the danger. Our form of govt was based on limited govt power not increasing it.

Baby Lee
11-13-2012, 08:22 AM
One problem with your theory is that not all speech is free. You are not allowed to harm another with your speech. In this case it harms all.

Harm to others is riot, murder or mayhem, not the hearing of even 'bad' ideas.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 12:34 PM
I think I understand both well enough.

M'right.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 12:36 PM
Yes, I agree that donating to a particular party or candidate is investing in them. It's called free speech.

And I've already addressed this multiple times with you. The electorate spoke and this time evidently they didn't agree with the message all these rich people were trying to sell.

The system worked. That's something I've said multiple times and you haven't addressed.

You're not getting it.

The wealthy control both parties. Agree or disagree?

mlyonsd
11-13-2012, 04:29 PM
You're not getting it.

The wealthy control both parties. Agree or disagree?Control, no. Influence, yes.

And like I said, I see where you're going with this. You're using what you claim to be 'fair' as a weapon to attack a POV that will only help dems. It's attacking a class. A class that I'd rather see have more influence politically than someone sitting around looking how to get more entitlement dollars. Dollars that are mostly paid by the class you're attacking.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 04:51 PM
Control, no. Influence, yes.

What's the key difference between the two, in your opinion?

mlyonsd
11-13-2012, 05:48 PM
What's the key difference between the two, in your opinion?
Do you see a difference with democrats pushing increased spending dollars to a certain class in return for votes any different influence than a rich guy giving more money towards a PAC?

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 06:20 PM
Do you see a difference with democrats pushing increased spending dollars to a certain class in return for votes any different influence than a rich guy giving more money towards a PAC?

I'm asking you:

I'm saying the rich control both parties.

You say they merely "influence" both parties.

What's the difference, here, that makes you right and me wrong?

mlyonsd
11-13-2012, 06:26 PM
I'm asking you:

I'm saying the rich control both parties.

You say they merely "influence" both parties.

What's the difference, here, that makes you right and me wrong?
One example is if you were right Akin would have never been allowed on the final ticket.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 06:28 PM
One example is if you were right Akin would have never been allowed on the final ticket.

So you're saying that if the wealthy controlled the parties, they would rig each party's primaries in their favor?

That's "controlling" a party to you?

mlyonsd
11-13-2012, 06:35 PM
So you're saying that if the wealthy controlled the parties, they would rig each party's primaries in their favor?

That's "controlling" a party to you?
No, I'm saying if the republicans were controlled by PAC's once Akin made his gaffe he would have been removed by them from the ticket.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 06:41 PM
No, I'm saying if the republicans were controlled by PAC's once Akin made his gaffe he would have been removed by them from the ticket.

He can't be removed once he wins the primary, other than by thwarting the will of the voters in the Missouri Senate Republican primary. Both parties embraced democratic primaries almost a century ago.

The only way he's "removed" is if he steps down.

Speaking of which, Republican super PACs donated to Akin anyway (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/265181-gop-super-pac-flips-to-akin-support), all through the primary process and the general election.

Once again, I'll ask the question -- what's the difference between "controlling" a party through huge million-dollar donations and merely "influencing" a party. You have yet to define the distinction.

mlyonsd
11-13-2012, 06:43 PM
He can't be removed once he wins the primary, other than by thwarting the will of the voters in the Missouri Senate Republican primary. Both parties embraced democratic primaries almost a century ago.

The only way he's "removed" is if he steps down.
So you're basically saying the PAC's don't control the process or the candidate.

Thanks for playing.

HonestChieffan
11-13-2012, 06:46 PM
So you're basically saying the PAC's don't control the process or the candidate.

Thanks for playing.

There you are

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 06:52 PM
So you're basically saying the PAC's don't control the process or the candidate.

Thanks for playing.

I cannot measure how much fail this is in one post.

1. Swing and a miss. You offer no reasoning as to why that's the logical conclusion of what I'm saying.

2. I don't know how you define "control" vs. mere "influence" because you refuse to define it. That's the key issue I'm trying to settle, first.

3. No matter who the candidate is, billionaire donors with unlimited donation power can ensure that the candidate espouses whatever message they want them to say. That's equally true for Todd Akin.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 06:54 PM
Once again, mlyonsd:

What's the difference between huge donors "controlling" a party and merely "influencing" it?

Please define the difference.

patteeu
11-13-2012, 07:02 PM
3. No matter who the candidate is, billionaire donors with unlimited donation power can ensure that the candidate espouses whatever message they want them to say. That's equally true for Todd Akin.

In some cases, maybe, but it's certainly not always true. And I doubt it's true in Aiken's case.

mlyonsd
11-13-2012, 07:03 PM
And I can't measure how much fail you can do in one thread.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:03 PM
In some cases, maybe, but it's certainly not always true.

What's the difference between huge donors "controlling" a party and merely "influencing" it?

Perhaps you can deliver a distinction where mlyonsd has voted present.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:04 PM
And I can't measure how much fail you can do in one thread.

Once again, mlyonsd:

What's the difference between huge donors "controlling" a party and merely "influencing" it?

Please define the difference.

Go Chiefs.

mlyonsd
11-13-2012, 07:06 PM
What's the difference between huge donors "controlling" a party and merely "influencing" it?

Perhaps you can deliver a distinction where mlyonsd has voted present.
I gave you the answer. You just don't want to recognize it.

Go Chiefs.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:08 PM
I gave you the answer. You just don't want to recognize it.

You gave me anecdotal support.

I want what I asked for: an actual definition of the difference. Can you provide one?

Just let me know.

patteeu
11-13-2012, 07:11 PM
What's the difference between huge donors "controlling" a party and merely "influencing" it?

Perhaps you can deliver a distinction where mlyonsd has voted present.

I thought mlyonsd did a pretty good job of giving an example of what he means by control.

For me, control would mean the billionaire could force the party to do whatever he wants. Influence would mean the he could increase the odds that the party would do what he wants. It might be strong influence (which approaches control) or weak influence (far from control) or anything in between.

mlyonsd
11-13-2012, 07:12 PM
You gave me anecdotal support.

I want what I asked for: an actual definition of the difference. Can you provide one?

Just let me know.
I gave you proof there is a difference.

Which is much more than what you have ever given back for your motive for the thread.

If we adopt your method of campaign finance which party benefits more?

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:14 PM
For me, control would mean the billionaire could force the party to do whatever he wants. Influence would mean the he could increase the odds that the party would do what he wants. It might be strong influence (which approaches control) or weak influence (far from control) or anything in between.

So in your take, having "control" over a political party in a democratic country like the US would be impossible, unless that party abandoned even the slightest democratic procedure.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:14 PM
I gave you proof there is a difference.

Right.

patteeu
11-13-2012, 07:22 PM
So in your take, having "control" over a political party in a democratic country like the US would be impossible, unless that party abandoned even the slightest democratic procedure.

No. I'd call it control if the guy could control every aspect except the democratic elements.

Direckshun
11-13-2012, 07:26 PM
No. I'd call it control if the guy could control every aspect except the democratic elements.

With that same definition in mind, does a majority stockholder control the company he holds the stock in?

Direckshun
11-14-2012, 03:45 PM
With that same definition in mind, does a majority stockholder control the company he holds the stock in?

Awaiting an answer from patteeu, or god forbid mlyonsd.

mlyonsd
11-14-2012, 04:28 PM
If we adopt your method of campaign finance which party benefits more?
Still waiting.

patteeu
11-14-2012, 04:44 PM
With that same definition in mind, does a majority stockholder control the company he holds the stock in?

Oh, I thought I'd already answered this. Yes, the majority stockholder has ultimate control although not day to day control.

Direckshun
11-15-2012, 04:25 PM
Oh, I thought I'd already answered this. Yes, the majority stockholder has ultimate control although not day to day control.

How is that different from a super PAC that can reliably generate hundreds of millions of dollars for a political party of choice?

patteeu
11-15-2012, 04:43 PM
How is that different from a super PAC that can reliably generate hundreds of millions of dollars for a political party of choice?

The super pac doesn't have ultimate or day-to-day control. The majority share holder can make things change. The super pac can only recommend change and threaten to withhold support if he doesn't get his way.

Direckshun
11-15-2012, 04:49 PM
The super pac doesn't have ultimate or day-to-day control. The majority share holder can make things change. The super pac can only recommend change and threaten to withhold support if he doesn't get his way.

I guess I'm confused by how you'd define "ultimate" control, then. Care to set me straight?

patteeu
11-15-2012, 04:58 PM
I guess I'm confused by how you'd define "ultimate" control, then. Care to set me straight?

If a majority stockholder in a shoe company decides they want to stop making shoes and get into the tire business instead, he can make it happen even if it makes no sense.

If a super pac wants a political party that is committed to the pro-life position to start advocating for partial birth abortion, they're going to tell him to take his money and get lost.

mlyonsd
11-15-2012, 07:14 PM
I guess I'm confused by how you'd define "ultimate" control, then. Care to set me straight?

There isn't any doubt you're confused.