Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic

wrmiller13
Posts: 260 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 86
Prospect
If those numbers are correct, and accurate as to what is going to be spent this year, an extra $ 45 million is little more than a drop in the bucket.

The money was already being spent by the corporations.  Now they just do not have to be quite so devious about it.
10/5/2010 2:30 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
So then we can all call out the leftist pundits who every day are blaming the upcoming election on the Citizens United decision?
10/5/2010 5:28 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by wrmiller13 on 10/5/2010 2:30:00 PM (view original):
If those numbers are correct, and accurate as to what is going to be spent this year, an extra $ 45 million is little more than a drop in the bucket.

The money was already being spent by the corporations.  Now they just do not have to be quite so devious about it.
Here's a completely different set of numbers from McClatchy:

Half a billion dollars from independent groups with strong but unofficial connections to Republicans and Democrats is flooding into congressional campaigns across the country this year, according to a study released Monday.

The Center for Public Integrity found that Republican-allied groups are likely to outspend their Democratic-oriented rivals by 3 to 2, and maybe even by 2 to 1. The center is a respected nonprofit, nonpartisan source of investigative journalism devoted to making institutional power transparent and accountable.

While big money in politics is hardly new, there never have been sums of this magnitude in midterm elections. The Center for Responsive Politics, another independent research group, estimates that in 2006, the last nonpresidential federal election year, independent interests spent about $300 million.

Further, never have so many donors been unidentified before elections; so far only about one-third of donors have been identified, the Center for Public Integrity study says.


10/5/2010 5:37 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect

If we take the time to see the whole story, not even getting into the bias of the source, we see that this isnt as big a deal as implied in the 1st paragraph.

$500 million, vs $300 million last year. A difference of $200 million. And even if we go with the higher 2-1 Dem vs pub spending that means that we are talking about an extra $67 million for the Pubs, out of what will probably be a $3 billion dollar total federal campaign bill.

Much ado about nothing.

10/5/2010 6:26 PM
genghisxcon
Posts: 5894 (0)
Hall of Famer
176 11
Prospect
If it is nothing, I'm sure you would have no objection to removing this money from play.
10/5/2010 6:31 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by genghisxcon on 10/5/2010 6:31:00 PM (view original):
If it is nothing, I'm sure you would have no objection to removing this money from play.
How could we do that?

This was a Supreme Court Decision dealing with political speech.

How would the Constitutional Amenment be written to stop this?

It is easier and makes for a better political society to let this be.
10/5/2010 6:34 PM
genghisxcon
Posts: 5894 (0)
Hall of Famer
176 11
Prospect
better for the Republican Party, at least
10/5/2010 6:47 PM
creilmann
Posts: 582 (0)
Hall of Famer
134 4
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/5/2010 6:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 10/5/2010 6:31:00 PM (view original):
If it is nothing, I'm sure you would have no objection to removing this money from play.
How could we do that?

This was a Supreme Court Decision dealing with political speech.

How would the Constitutional Amenment be written to stop this?

It is easier and makes for a better political society to let this be.
It creates a political society that says whoever has the most money will likely win.  Is that what you consider better?
10/5/2010 6:56 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 110
Prospect
Posted by creilmann on 10/5/2010 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/5/2010 6:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 10/5/2010 6:31:00 PM (view original):
If it is nothing, I'm sure you would have no objection to removing this money from play.
How could we do that?

This was a Supreme Court Decision dealing with political speech.

How would the Constitutional Amenment be written to stop this?

It is easier and makes for a better political society to let this be.
It creates a political society that says whoever has the most money will likely win.  Is that what you consider better?
I'm not concerned. Sounds like what we have now with not-for-profits campaigning for candidates.... just opens a new route for "fundraising". Why shouldn't corporations get a say on who they feel will benefit them? They pay taxes too.
10/5/2010 7:09 PM
jiml60
Posts: 7131 (0)
Hall of Famer
131 99
Prospect
Can corporations vote?  If they can then they should be able to donate.  They're not individuals, they shouldn't have the same rights.
It's kind of sad when people can't see how this is corrupting our government and office holders but still want corporations to have the ability to control who gets elected.
10/5/2010 7:46 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 110
Prospect
Nobody is donating anything. The article is about special interest group spending on politics.

Thanks for insulting me btw.

Businesses pay taxes, why shouldn't they be allowed to air a 30 second commercial about the candidate they feel will help them and their employees the most. Unions have been pushing one party for years. Organizations like moveon.org have been airing ads for years. What's the difference if its moveon or Abc company? Both pay taxes. The people watching and listening are the ones that vote.
10/5/2010 8:08 PM (edited)
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
This is actually a free speech issue.

You want to be able to tell people when they can and cannot talk.

What is the basis for a Corporation not being able to talk about politics? Why cant a person create an advoccacy group and run commercials.

This whole "Corporations shouldnt be able to control who gets elected" is misdirection. No one is controling anything.
10/5/2010 11:29 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by moy23 on 10/5/2010 8:08:00 PM (view original):
Nobody is donating anything. The article is about special interest group spending on politics.

Thanks for insulting me btw.

Businesses pay taxes, why shouldn't they be allowed to air a 30 second commercial about the candidate they feel will help them and their employees the most. Unions have been pushing one party for years. Organizations like moveon.org have been airing ads for years. What's the difference if its moveon or Abc company? Both pay taxes. The people watching and listening are the ones that vote.
1) The businesses doing the spending are hiding behind shell organizations with vaguely patriotic names. I'd have less problem with ad buys if it was clearly identified precisely who they were made by.

2) If one side's spending dwarfs the other, they'll drive the other side off the air. If moveon (to use the pathetic, knee-jerk right-wing example) pays $1000 for a 30-second spot, and the Koch Brothers (to use the new, knee-jerk left-wing example) go to that broadcaster and say "We'll give you $2000 to run our 30-second spot", who's going to win? Hell, what if they say "We'll give you $2000 per spot, provided you stop taking moveon's business", is there any law stopping them from cutting that deal?

3) We've now got a situation where outside parties are spending more on elections than the actual people and parties trying to get elected. That doesn't strike you as a perversion of the process?
10/6/2010 10:45 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
1 It might be a little disturbing. It isnt 100% seceret. And it isnt a huge problem.

2 I have 185 channels, can you really shut out anyone? 

3 We do not have this situation. The federal off year election cycle is an almost $3 billion biz.

Again this has not changed the political landscape that much.
10/6/2010 1:56 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 110
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 10/6/2010 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 10/5/2010 8:08:00 PM (view original):
Nobody is donating anything. The article is about special interest group spending on politics.

Thanks for insulting me btw.

Businesses pay taxes, why shouldn't they be allowed to air a 30 second commercial about the candidate they feel will help them and their employees the most. Unions have been pushing one party for years. Organizations like moveon.org have been airing ads for years. What's the difference if its moveon or Abc company? Both pay taxes. The people watching and listening are the ones that vote.
1) The businesses doing the spending are hiding behind shell organizations with vaguely patriotic names. I'd have less problem with ad buys if it was clearly identified precisely who they were made by.

2) If one side's spending dwarfs the other, they'll drive the other side off the air. If moveon (to use the pathetic, knee-jerk right-wing example) pays $1000 for a 30-second spot, and the Koch Brothers (to use the new, knee-jerk left-wing example) go to that broadcaster and say "We'll give you $2000 to run our 30-second spot", who's going to win? Hell, what if they say "We'll give you $2000 per spot, provided you stop taking moveon's business", is there any law stopping them from cutting that deal?

3) We've now got a situation where outside parties are spending more on elections than the actual people and parties trying to get elected. That doesn't strike you as a perversion of the process?
Again.... I don't think its a big deal although you guys and swamp will make it out to be ;)

1) I agree.... clarity of where the funds come from should be a part of this process... and at some point I believe it will.

2) not concerned - there are plenty of ways to spend a budget.... ads, grassroot activities, etc. I don't know what the laws are for uniform advertising pricing? Can a network charge more for one ad over another at the same time slot? I don't know. I do know they already decline ads they don't want to air. truly though, if the networks can make more money off the increased spending then good for them. It's a free market. Like anything else abuses here can be fixed down the road. I doubt it will be a big issue.

3) I'm a big believer in business, small and large. I don't think its that terrible to hear why a business would vote for this person or that or that they endorse so and so. ultimately the more info out there the better. really the whole process already is a perversion imo... most of these candidates are so corrupt that I think its best to know which special interest groups are backing them.
10/6/2010 5:43 PM
◂ Prev 1...73|74|75|76|77...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.