Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic

rlahann
Posts: 1071 (0)
Hall of Famer
66 3 24 169 155
Prospect
It's crazy how little attention, relatively speaking, that decision received.  Biggest one in a very long time...probably since Clinton vs. City of NY.  Although I'm probably forgetting something.
10/4/2010 2:36 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by moy23 on 10/4/2010 12:52:00 PM (view original):
I'm not justifying it. I just wonder if dems even considered the repercussions for villianizing big business. Corporations more than likely spent billions to lobby for more clout in the political arena and they got it.... now thy are financing republicans to get dems out of office. Cause and effect. That's all I'm saying.
You cannot possibly believe that the money is only being spent because the Dems said mean things about corporations.
10/4/2010 2:42 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by rlahann on 10/4/2010 2:36:00 PM (view original):
It's crazy how little attention, relatively speaking, that decision received.  Biggest one in a very long time...probably since Clinton vs. City of NY.  Although I'm probably forgetting something.
Kelo
10/4/2010 2:45 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 10/4/2010 10:57:00 AM (view original):
The impact of Citizens United:

The $80 million spent so far by groups outside the Democratic and Republican parties dwarfs the $16 million spent at this point for the 2006 midterms. In that election, the vast majority of money - more than 90 percent - was disclosed along with donors' identities. This year, that figure has fallen to less than half of the total, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.

The trends amount to a spending frenzy conducted largely in the shadows.

The bulk of the money is being spent by conservatives, who have swamped their Democratic-aligned competition by 7 to 1 in recent weeks. The wave of spending is made possible in part by a series of Supreme Court rulings unleashing the ability of corporations and interest groups to spend money on politics.

Lets break this down a bit.

2006 $16 million spent and 90% was disclosed.

2010 $80 million spent and 45% disclosed.

So after CU, which is supposed to change everything, another $64 million ios being spent and about $38 million is from unknown sources.

Doesnt seem like the end of the world to me!
10/4/2010 3:21 PM
rlahann
Posts: 1071 (0)
Hall of Famer
66 3 24 169 155
Prospect
Dude.  I mean, it's probably not "the end of the world" whatever you mean, or think we mean, by that, but it's a ridiculous change in how campaigns are run.
10/4/2010 3:43 PM
rlahann
Posts: 1071 (0)
Hall of Famer
66 3 24 169 155
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 10/4/2010 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rlahann on 10/4/2010 2:36:00 PM (view original):
It's crazy how little attention, relatively speaking, that decision received.  Biggest one in a very long time...probably since Clinton vs. City of NY.  Although I'm probably forgetting something.
Kelo
Yeah--I mean, that was intellectually huge, but in effect, I don't think it has been all that big--but correct me if I'm wrong.  I think I remembered reading that states kind of went the other way with it, trying to limit the impact of the ruling rather than swoop into the vacuum it created. 
10/4/2010 3:45 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 110
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 10/4/2010 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 10/4/2010 12:52:00 PM (view original):
I'm not justifying it. I just wonder if dems even considered the repercussions for villianizing big business. Corporations more than likely spent billions to lobby for more clout in the political arena and they got it.... now thy are financing republicans to get dems out of office. Cause and effect. That's all I'm saying.
You cannot possibly believe that the money is only being spent because the Dems said mean things about corporations.
Of course not. It's not just the mean things... its higher cap gains taxes, more environmental regulation, healthcare costs increases, etc. These things affect business where it hurts.... the balance sheet.
10/4/2010 4:03 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by rlahann on 10/4/2010 3:43:00 PM (view original):
Dude.  I mean, it's probably not "the end of the world" whatever you mean, or think we mean, by that, but it's a ridiculous change in how campaigns are run.

So far very little has changed. The large majority of money is coming from the same place it always has. This election is the same as the last one.

10/4/2010 4:46 PM
rlahann
Posts: 1071 (0)
Hall of Famer
66 3 24 169 155
Prospect
You don't see a quintupling of campaign spending as a significant change?
10/4/2010 4:59 PM
genghisxcon
Posts: 5894 (0)
Hall of Famer
176 11
Prospect
Not if it doesn't support hsis point, he doesn't.

Reminds me of the scene in the Sound of Music where Herr Zeller says that the von Trapp family can perform in the festival, because it will show that "nothing has changed" in Austria under the Nazis.
10/4/2010 5:30 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by rlahann on 10/4/2010 3:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by antonsirius on 10/4/2010 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rlahann on 10/4/2010 2:36:00 PM (view original):
It's crazy how little attention, relatively speaking, that decision received.  Biggest one in a very long time...probably since Clinton vs. City of NY.  Although I'm probably forgetting something.
Kelo
Yeah--I mean, that was intellectually huge, but in effect, I don't think it has been all that big--but correct me if I'm wrong.  I think I remembered reading that states kind of went the other way with it, trying to limit the impact of the ruling rather than swoop into the vacuum it created. 
There haven't been the massive rash of eminent domain grabs that the libertarians were worried about in its wake, but I think it did change the way governments (and those prone to abusing their power) think about "private" property. To take one example, the crap in Montgomery wouldn't be happening if not for Kelo, IMO.
10/4/2010 7:16 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by moy23 on 10/4/2010 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by antonsirius on 10/4/2010 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 10/4/2010 12:52:00 PM (view original):
I'm not justifying it. I just wonder if dems even considered the repercussions for villianizing big business. Corporations more than likely spent billions to lobby for more clout in the political arena and they got it.... now thy are financing republicans to get dems out of office. Cause and effect. That's all I'm saying.
You cannot possibly believe that the money is only being spent because the Dems said mean things about corporations.
Of course not. It's not just the mean things... its higher cap gains taxes, more environmental regulation, healthcare costs increases, etc. These things affect business where it hurts.... the balance sheet.
In other words, the "repercussions for villianizing big business" are non-existent, since big business would have been spending gobs of money against the Dems anyway.
10/4/2010 7:25 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by rlahann on 10/4/2010 4:59:00 PM (view original):
You don't see a quintupling of campaign spending as a significant change?
Campaign spending didnt quintuple. Spending from one specific area did. Kind of like you work full time and make $1250 a week and your kid works as a paperboy for $15 a week. He gets a 2nd route and will be making $60, but in reality your household doesnt change.
10/4/2010 11:39 PM
rlahann
Posts: 1071 (0)
Hall of Famer
66 3 24 169 155
Prospect
Good clarification.  

So, you don't see a quintupling of campaign spending from outside the political parties as a significant change?

Also, that analogy sucks.  I'm not looking up the numbers, but I'm quite sure the net impact is a lot more than that.
10/4/2010 11:54 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Well since in 2006 there was $2,852,658,140 spent total on federal elections I think you are right, but in the other direction. I should have made it smaller.
10/5/2010 12:31 AM
◂ Prev 1...72|73|74|75|76...133 Next ▸
Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.