Is there anyone in the GOP who advocates to remove money from elections?
- Thread starter Cinnabar
- Start date
cawacko
Well-known member
Obviously we can get more into the weeds on each of these items but on a surface level most people want a "just peace". What exactly does that entail in the real world?
And how are you defining a better education? Again, most folks would say they want a better education system. What does that entail to you?
And how does a more comprehensive public sector benefit me or anyone other than those it may provide employment too?
Mccain/Feingold was an attempt to take money out of politics. The political season should be much, much shorter. The only money allowed should be provided by taxpayers. No outside money. That was the goal of Mccain Feingold. But a loophole was discovered and 501Cs and PACS were created. That allows huge money to be in campaigns as long as the candidate and staff are not involved in running them. It also allows the PACs to not report who is really providing the money. We should address those shortcomings.
I read that the money received from wealthy and corporate donors results in an 11 fold payback.https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/08/the-legacy-of-mccain-feingold/
The problem of wealthy and corporations buying our elections must be addressed.
I read that the money received from wealthy and corporate donors results in an 11 fold payback.https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/08/the-legacy-of-mccain-feingold/
The problem of wealthy and corporations buying our elections must be addressed.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
There's going to be public and private sectors no matter which party is in control.
The private sector is perfectly appropriate for providing goods and services that people acquire through discretionary spending---
as long as it's regulated enough to provide reasonable protection to workers, consumers, and investors.
For necessities like health care, just to site one example, the private sector is a waste. Money that should go to the actual health care services is instead wasted on huge insurance company profits. Do you think it would be that hard tom develop a safe appetite suppressant for obese people? Of course not, but no development goes into that because illnesses arising from obesity are so profitable to pharma, to insurance, and even to physicians alike. That's just one small example how socialized medicine makes more sense.
The private sector is perfectly appropriate for providing goods and services that people acquire through discretionary spending---
as long as it's regulated enough to provide reasonable protection to workers, consumers, and investors.
For necessities like health care, just to site one example, the private sector is a waste. Money that should go to the actual health care services is instead wasted on huge insurance company profits. Do you think it would be that hard tom develop a safe appetite suppressant for obese people? Of course not, but no development goes into that because illnesses arising from obesity are so profitable to pharma, to insurance, and even to physicians alike. That's just one small example how socialized medicine makes more sense.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Celticguy,
Yes it does.
It doesn't do it instantly.
That's the problem. Everybody is seeking instant gratification on a matter that simply takes time to solve.
Yes it does.
It doesn't do it instantly.
That's the problem. Everybody is seeking instant gratification on a matter that simply takes time to solve.
So money only influences other (gullible) people and not you? European elections are different in many ways (no primaries). Why is Steyer, for example, spending millions? Is it influencing any votes?
I didn't say they have no effect. They are designed to reinforce the support of their side and feed them enough red meat so they are willing to go out and vote and to persuade undecided voters. In today's competitive climate the undecided may win the election. But popular candidates get contributions because they have supporters, they don't become popular by spending money.
All the unknown Democratic candidates like Wang or Mayor Pete became familiar to us because of media coverage and not because of campaign spending. That is why campaign tours are largely geared toward getting media attention rather than the relatively small audiences they will speak to (and the tactics for getting "free media" are very interesting).
Even commercial advertisers admit half their advertising is wasted--they just don't know which half. Money is necessary, but not sufficient to win elections. Trying to limit it only results in new ways around that law (like McCain Feingold).
Interesting studies are those that compare the many different state state campaign finance laws and their consequences (or those states that have term limits on state legislators).
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
Obama is into big money. That is what got him elected and that is what turned his great intentions on reforming healthcare into the PPACA, written by the big healthcare corporations which stood to profit by it. He got passed what he could get passed under the given political climate.
And that is why we need the Anti-Corruption Act.
Obama is into big money. That is what got him elected and that is what turned his great intentions on reforming healthcare into the PPACA, written by the big healthcare corporations which stood to profit by it. He got passed what he could get passed under the given political climate.
And that is why we need the Anti-Corruption Act.
countryboy
Verified User
Communism always looks good on paper, but fails in real life, every, single, time. Do libs ever even bother to look at the current realities of socialized medicine around the world?
I'm unsure which points you are referring to.
Do you mean the point about money not buying support is contradicted by saying challengers need money to acquire name recognition?
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
You do understand that a proposal has about a 30% chance of becoming law regardless of public opinion, don't you?
The only thing that changes that is if it is something the super-rich want.
In that case the odds of it becoming law are doubled.
You do understand that a proposal has about a 30% chance of becoming law regardless of public opinion, don't you?
The only thing that changes that is if it is something the super-rich want.
In that case the odds of it becoming law are doubled.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Getin the ring
Verified User
The Democrats are not going to let you remove big money from elections, they may never win again if they do.
Big money has been the Democrat way since Bill Clinton held off Ross Perot
Big money has been the Democrat way since Bill Clinton held off Ross Perot
I disagree. A proposal (if you mean a bill introduced in Congress) has less than 10% chance of even being considered and 1% of being passed.
So the super rich wanted Obama elected, Social Security and Medicare laws, food stamps, welfare, SSI, deficit spending, Medicaid, civil rights legislation, gay rights, Dreamers act.......Sounds like the super rich is a liberal group (which polls have generally shown over the years, especially on civil liberties issues).
Getin the ring
Verified User
The Democrats have sold their souls to special interests,
it's what keeps them running
it's what keeps them running
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
Impertinent question ignored.
You may as well try to argue that there is no huge legalized big money corruption system in US politics.
Bottom line. If it didn't work they would not spend so much.
Impertinent question ignored.
You may as well try to argue that there is no huge legalized big money corruption system in US politics.
Bottom line. If it didn't work they would not spend so much.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
"challengers need money go acquire similar name recognition and to get out the message about the incumbent's poor record."
"challengers need money go acquire similar name recognition and to get out the message about the incumbent's poor record."
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
No that is incorrect.
Studies show that the super-rich favor Republican candidates.
No that is incorrect.
Studies show that the super-rich favor Republican candidates.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Yes! I think we are learning a lot about EXECUTIVE POWERS- and turning them over to a CRIME LORD!
Certain EXECUTIVE POWERS may have to be re-thunk for all future presidents as we may have to take some powers away- BECAUSE TRUMP HAS RUINED IT FOR ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS BY USING HIS POWERS TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, PUTTING HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW, DESTROYING AND COVERING UP EVIDENCE, TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES, LETTING PSYCHOPATHS OUT OF PRISON BY PARDONING THEM, SPENDING MILLIONS OF TAX-PAYERS DOLLARS EVERY WEEKEND SO HE CAN PLAY GOLF, USING THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE TO MAKE MONEY FOR HIMSELF, BRIBING PRESIDENTS TO HELP HIM POLITICALLY, HAVING BACK-DOOR CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH OTHER CORRUPT LEADERS OF ADVERSARIAL COUNTRIES, GIVING AWAY TOP-SECRETS TO CORRUPT LEADERS OF FOREIGN ADVERSARIAL NATIONS........................
THE LIST GOES ON- AND ON- AND ON- AND ON- and I am just getting warmed up......
BUT YOU CATCH MY DRIFT................................
WE have work to do now.
Last edited:
The first thing a candidate has to do is prove they have the financial backing to run for president. The candidates are often compared by how much money they have in the bank. To deny the power of money is foolish and wrong. Money is necessary to get into the debates. Money is needed to develop and pay for an organization in each state to get out the vote. You have to provide equipment, pay for and office and supplies and have to train workers. When the election nears, you need to pay for incredibly expensive ads to get out the vote.
The advantage of having lots of money is clear. It is a benefit to provide better quality organizational tools and putting your ads into every commercial break week after week. Money is powerful in American elections and that is why the wealthy can run without qualifying for the job.
The advantage of having lots of money is clear. It is a benefit to provide better quality organizational tools and putting your ads into every commercial break week after week. Money is powerful in American elections and that is why the wealthy can run without qualifying for the job.
Then if all those liberal policies were not favored by the super rich, they must not run the country because their views did not prevail.
If you look at campaign finance reports you will see both Democrats and Republicans get large campaign contributions form the super wealthy.
About100 billionaires have contributed to current Democratic presidential candidates (46 to Harris).
As of the August, 2019, reporting data the topo 10 donors had given $47 million to candidates, parties and groups. 7 of those 10 gave to Democrats.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/08/81419-donors-giving-the-most-2020/