He didn't take the public financing because he could raise and spend much more if he didn't--it didn't matter whether all that additional money came from large or small donors. By 2006 Obama no longer favored single payer.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition?
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
He didn't take the public financing because he could raise and spend much more if he didn't--it didn't matter whether all that additional money came from large or small donors. By 2006 Obama no longer favored single payer.
You are completely missing the point. I don't think money determines their actions--you are the one saying our behavior is dictated by money.
Because it is, Flash.
It is absurd to believe that money doesn't carry influence.
That is usually the attitude of people who are more motivated by money, themselves, and assume it also motivates everybody else.
You are under the delusion that a mega bundler carries the same influence with an elected rep as a guy who makes $8.25/hr.
Do you really believe that, or are you just trolling me here?
Flash is kicking ass on this thread. LV looks like a whipped puppy.
The fact that you felt compelled to post this leads me to the exact opposite conclusion.
You are on ignore LV. I am sure you are whining like a bitch though because I am correct. You are getting your ass kicked.
Popeye, there's nobody as ignorant as you are.
He didn't take the public financing because he could raise and spend much more if he didn't
RIGHT, and look at where he got his contributions: HIPPA, PHARMA...the special interest groups that benefited from Obamacare.
Eschewing public campaign financing was done so he could raise more money from large donors, not to expand his base of small donors.
And those large donors got their pound of flesh, whether it was no Public Option or bailouts for the banks and no Wall Street prosecutions.
By 2006 Obama no longer favored single payer.
Well, that's debatable because he did say he supported it in the 2008 debates.
But it doesn't matter because he was getting millions from HIPPA to ensure that any health care reform would not negatively affect the Health Insurance companies.
And it didn't, did it?
You are on ignore LV. I am sure you are whining like a bitch though because I am correct. You are getting your ass kicked.
Yeah, I don't believe you.
I mean, I personally would vote for it regardless of what money was donated to me, so I don't understand where you're trying to lead me here.
You put it perfectly a couple posts ago when you tried to sarcastically say that politicians would compete for the most votes instead of the most money, and you said it like it was a bad thing.
That is my point. The money did not determine how you would vote because you favored the plan. Yet, you think everybody else sells out for the money.
I was not being sarcastic when I said politicians would go after the votes rather than the money. That has been my point all along---votes win elections, not money. Money is necessary but not sufficient. Going after the votes is how they get reelected.
To suggest that all politicians are crooks taking bribes is just fashionable and is part of the trend since the mid 1960's that saw a majority of voters claiming they could trust the government to do what is right to a minority today (with only an upturn after 9-11).
Before I retired when I was teaching I would give my students a question about whether if they got change for a $20 when they only gave the clerk $10 would they return the money. I kept their anonymous answers until later when we discussed the money issue. I then asked whether they thought most politicians sell their votes for money and then matched up their answers.
Those who said they would not return the change were most likely to say politicians sell their votes. I theorized (with no evidence) that it shows those who are more financially motivated assume others are also.
That is my point. The money did not determine how you would vote because you favored the plan. Yet, you think everybody else sells out for the money
I just don't see how you can look at legislation from the past 40 years and think it had nothing to do with wealthy campaign contributors.
How did we end up without a Public Option or single payer healthcare if not because of the money spent by special interests lobbying against it?
I was not being sarcastic when I said politicians would go after the votes rather than the money. That has been my point all along---votes win elections, not money. Money is necessary but not sufficient. Going after the votes is how they get reelected.
But this denies the reality that in today's elections, money is necessary.
You said it yourself when you said that the reason Joe Six Pack can't run against an Establishment rep is because of money.
YOU SAID THAT ON THIS THREAD.
So now we're at the point of the debate where you contradict yourself again. Then you get all pissy and bitchy when I point it out.
Here we go again...
To suggest that all politicians are crooks taking bribes is just fashionable and is part of the trend since the mid 1960's that saw a majority of voters claiming they could trust the government to do what is right to a minority today (with only an upturn after 9-11).
Flash, if a politician is spending 90% of their time around wealthy, big donors who bundle for their campaigns, do you not believe those bundlers are going to have influence over the person or people they're spending 90% of their time with?
Think carefully about this.
Before I retired when I was teaching I would give my students a question about whether if they got change for a $20 when they only gave the clerk $10 would they return the money. I kept their anonymous answers until later when we discussed the money issue. I then asked whether they thought most politicians sell their votes for money and then matched up their answers.
BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.
Bullshit anecdotes, right on cue, right keeping in your style.
It always devolves to this shit with you. You can't argue or debate the merits of your ideas or beliefs, so now you invoke imaginary circumstances and bullshit unverifiable anecdotes to bridge the credibility gap that exists in your argument.
You always fucking do this.
WEAK SAUCE.
You are under the delusion that a mega bundler carries the same influence with an elected rep as a guy who makes $8.25/hr. Do you really believe that, or are you just trolling me here?
If by influence you mean gets to be honored by having dinner with the Congressman at an intimate dinner of 50, gets called when he wants to raise money, gets courted by the party to give more money, maybe gets a golf game......
If you mean the Congressman passes legislation because the bundler requested it then it is much less common.
Many of the donors are not ideological and want to rub shoulders with the powerful.
"Why does public financing appear to have this (polarizing) effect? Hall argues that public financing weakens the influence of a maligned, but moderating, force in elections: access-oriented interest groups. Public financing reduces the funding supplied by these groups by over $20,000 per race, on average. The problem is that these groups give relatively little to ideologically extreme legislators and much more to moderates. Individual donors, however, have no such preference."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...elections-makes-politics-even-more-polarized/
That is my point. The money did not determine how you would vote because you favored the plan. Yet, you think everybody else sells out for the money.
I was not being sarcastic when I said politicians would go after the votes rather than the money. That has been my point all along---votes win elections, not money. Money is necessary but not sufficient. Going after the votes is how they get reelected.
To suggest that all politicians are crooks taking bribes is just fashionable and is part of the trend since the mid 1960's that saw a majority of voters claiming they could trust the government to do what is right to a minority today (with only an upturn after 9-11).
Before I retired when I was teaching I would give my students a question about whether if they got change for a $20 when they only gave the clerk $10 would they return the money. I kept their anonymous answers until later when we discussed the money issue. I then asked whether they thought most politicians sell their votes for money and then matched up their answers.
Those who said they would not return the change were most likely to say politicians sell their votes. I theorized (with no evidence) that it shows those who are more financially motivated assume others are also.
Want a sure fire way to kill a thread?
Make up some bullshit story that confirms your inherent biases, shit it forth vaguely and ambiguously on an anonymous forum, then refuse to verify these anecdotes before accusing others of being dishonest.
Way to go, Flash. You did it again. You had to reach into your bag of rhetorical bullshit and pull out another unverifiable anecdote that requires a suspension of disbelief in order to consider it as something meaningful in the debate.
Pa-THETIC.
If by influence you mean gets to be honored by having dinner with the Congressman at an intimate dinner of 50, gets called when he wants to raise money, gets courted by the party to give more money, maybe gets a golf game......
What do you think they talk about during those dinners? During those phone calls? During those golf games? What do you think gets discussed there?
What you're describing is ACCESS, and you're literally saying that the guy with money has more ACCESS...which is my entire point.
So once again, we have an instance of you making my point for me.
If you mean the Congressman passes legislation because the bundler requested it then it is much less common.
Ah, but it still happens, though, doesn't it?
Didn't John Boehner do that very thing himself on the floor of the House for cigarette companies?
Literally handed reps checks on the floor of the House after they voted to protect tobacco companies.
"Why does public financing appear to have this (polarizing) effect? Hall argues that public financing weakens the influence of a maligned, but moderating, force in elections: access-oriented interest groups. Public financing reduces the funding supplied by these groups by over $20,000 per race, on average. The problem is that these groups give relatively little to ideologically extreme legislators and much more to moderates. Individual donors, however, have no such preference."
The bolded is more commonly referred to as "lobbyists".
Do you want lobbyists buying politicians? You seem to be arguing that you do.
I just don't see how you can look at legislation from the past 40 years and think it had nothing to do with wealthy campaign contributors.
How did we end up without a Public Option or single payer healthcare if not because of the money spent by special interests lobbying against it?
That means the wealthy donors must be liberals because we have a history of passing liberal legislation from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, poverty programs, tax benefits for middle class (IRA), ADA, ACA, union organizing efforts................And, if your assumption is those with the money get their legislation passed, the liberals have been successful.
Ah, but it still happens, though, doesn't it?
Didn't John Boehner do that very thing himself on the floor of the House for cigarette companies?
Literally handed reps checks on the floor of the House after they voted to protect tobacco companies.
The bolded is more commonly referred to as "lobbyists".
Do you want lobbyists buying politicians? You seem to be arguing that you do.
Interest groups and lobbyists are not the same thing. A group may hire a lobbyist to push its goals, but access is the goal, not legislation.
Lobbying and campaign contributions are not the same thing. Some lobbyist give contributions from the group(s) they represent and some do not. Groups like the AARP lobby but cannot give money.
If you were a House member and represented an agricultural district in KY and really wanted to follow the wishes of your constituents and want to be reelected, you are going to do everything you can to save the tobacco industry whether they give you any money or not.
Want a sure fire way to kill a thread?
Make up some bullshit story that confirms your inherent biases, shit it forth vaguely and ambiguously on an anonymous forum, then refuse to verify these anecdotes before accusing others of being dishonest.
Way to go, Flash. You did it again. You had to reach into your bag of rhetorical bullshit and pull out another unverifiable anecdote that requires a suspension of disbelief in order to consider it as something meaningful in the debate.
Pa-THETIC.
You fail to mention all your claims about the influence of money in elections and legislation is unverifiable and goes against years of established studies in political science, economics, and sociology.
I tried to introduce an interesting story and specifically stated the conclusion was not based on any evidence. You have to get hostile and accuse people of lying and making stuff up. You have ruined another decent debate.
However, your cynicism about a simple story confirms your cynicism about politics that every uninformed but opinionated person spouts. I'm done.