[SIZE=11pt]It’s said the Koch brothers will be spending big in 2016 -[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]The political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch plans to spend close to $900 million on the 2016 campaign, an unparalleled effort by coordinated outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history.[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]The spending goal, revealed Monday at the Kochs’ annual winter donor retreat near Palm Springs, Calif., would allow their political organization to operate at the same financial scale as the Democratic and Republican Parties. It would require a significant financial commitment from the Kochs and roughly 300 other donors they have recruited over the years, and covers both the presidential and congressional races. In the last presidential election, the Republican National Committee and the party’s two congressional campaign committees spent a total of $657 million. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]NY Times[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]Question is can elections be bought and if so how would you stop wealth influence? [/SIZE]
Case study: Jeb Bush. He has spent more than anybody, so far this election cycle. How is that working out for him? Money can spread your message around. It can't make people like what they hear. I think that Koch techniques work better at the House and Senate levels than at the Presidential level of competition. True, meaningful campaign finance reform may require a constitutional amendment.
This past caucus, a vote for Jeb in Iowa was a little over $20k. With all the money he spent on billboards and adds. Cruz, although cheated and scammed, his vote was $745. Trumps net value of a vote to him, $3 dollars! Jeb has wasted millions. Cruz I can't remember his exact number but in millions, trump had a total of $131k invested in iowa. My state is full of farmers and all farmers want free money and top dollar for crop. Whichever side offers the most, gets the win!
Pretty much everything can be bought in this world. So why wouldn't elections be just another commodity. The Kochroaches can buy elections not because they are scum. Its because they're scum and people are too lazy, cowardly, spineless to do anything about it. The Kochroaches run the show because people let them. In other words, you could argue that thats all they deserve.. Which is pretty sad.
I'm not sure this is a fair assessment. Sure, there are a lot of lazy, cowardly, spineless people out there...but mostly people are just overworked, underpaid, and too tired to really give a shit - which is a goal of all the wealthy donors pouring money into elections, isn't it? It isn't really productive to blame the average citizen for not being aware or for being apathetic when the system is specificly designed to create this type of citizen.
When I invest, I am to profit if the market rises. AND if the market tanks. I'm sure the Kochroaches won't be any different. You assume they only wanted John McPain-upthe arse etc They don't give a flying shit who the president is, only what he does ie serves their agenda. We had a prick called Blair brought in by "the Club". Labour Party leader but he was as Labour as Margaret Thatcher. And this isnt just me saying all this. A former British prime minister said exactly the same to me in private. They're largely puppets of Koch type groups. There might technically be "elements of democracy". But the overwhelming balance of power lies with certain small but powerful groups. Kockroaches being one of them. Its always said about Africa that "you can't have a democracy if people cant read". Well, with the West, I'd say "you cant have a democracy if people can't read genuine media coverage". And thats one several huge problems with the sham that is called democracy.
They're overworked, underpaid and tired because their lords and masters in Washington/Westminster/Brussels etc are screwing them up the behind. If they spent less time reading about Bruce Jenner and agonising what colour car seat leathers to have, they'd be better able to rid themselves of the chains. Its not like people havent worked out they are being screwed over. Its this apathy that causes the Kochroaches to have such little respect for people. It would only take a little work to make a huge difference, but most people just want to sit on their arses. So the shit is largely of their own making, IMO. You think people dont have time to free themselves today? Do you think they had lots of time spare in the 1960s, 1920s, 19th century?
kiprat Now that is intriguing – There are not that many former PM’s alive – Major Blair Brown Now I’m not sure Blair or Brown would say that - so that leaves Major and if anything Major as part of the Carlyle Group was definitely part of that ‘club’ you talk about. What should they do?
Well everyone seems to agree that US politics has a problem with political financing campaign contributions and paid for lobbying BUT the thing is what can be done? Do people agree with Karen that meaningful campaign finance reform can only be done if the constitution is changed?
Possibly. Which isn't impossible but it is unlikely considering the majority of lawmakers benefit from current campaign finance law. There was a story on NPR the other day about campaign financing. The final conclusion seemed to be that campaign financing doesn't hold any power in campaigns - if it did, corporations and super pacs would donate more. Sure, that makes sense..
Its happening because voters let it happen. It stops when the voters say it stops. They can buy things that might attract a vote, but they can't actually buy votes. I doubt they ever actually will be able to do that. If you know someone who doesn't vote, tell them they have to right to refuse but are negligent for doing so. Its time we sent all the haters to shame people who don't vote. Unless you're working that day, you can put your shoes and socks on long enough to get down there and participate..and not just when a Presidency is at stake...
Yes, when they spend big money on a specific candidate, I assume they want that candidate elected. Through social media and other internet options, are they not taking steps to end it now? Big money used to buy elections mostly through TV commercials, but those are declining rapidly in effectiveness. Jeb Bush has proven this. Where specifically is the money going to be spent in the future to buy elections? I've been asking this for weeks, and nobody is attempting to answer. Times are changing, fast.
Bernie Sanders has spent more on various internet campaigning than any other candidate. It has obviously proven very effective with young voters. I follow him myself on Facebook and Instagram. The thing about the internet is it is easier to filter the bullshit. If something doesn't sound right it can be fact checked in an instant.i don't know if dark campaign money will prove as effective on the internet.
Karen and Mel I so like a challenge – So what to do if your influence from bought advertising stops have the clout it used to. * First try and limit the vote in the real world through laws limiting the vote to those without criminal records, showing ID before voting, making people jump through hoops before getting registration and it’s also being suggested her that property qualification should come back so only those that had property or mortgages could vote. * Gerrymander where possible in the real world. * Move the emphasis from national to regional – try and lock up the federal government and try and take over state assemblies. * Pack the internet with paid commentators acting as ‘ordinary’ people pushing your views and ridiculing your opponents, disrupt as much as possible if needs be. * Buy up advertising space in all places on the web that it is possible to do so. * Cyber attack those places or accounts that oppose you. * Bring in laws to limit the influence of online canvassing *
Yeah, that's pretty much what they've got left. The question remaining to be answered is, will it be enough? Most of those tricks have more to do with effort and organization than large sums of money.
As far as changing voting law the only thing that could realistically pass is requiring an ID. Everything else is extremely unconstitutional and if we reach the point where measures like only allowing property owners a vote is passed I'm leaving the country. But I don't think it will happen. Everything else you mentioned is possible. Most of it is already happening, actually. I would love to see someone introduce legislation to limit gerrymandering.
One can spend lots of money on campaign funding. One can bribe voters into voting. But all the money in the world doesn't guarantee campaign victories. Take a look at Jeb Bush. He's spent hundreds of millions of dollars and he's still failing at the primaries.
Well, I'm asking for a link about property qualifications for voting. is this real? And as far as ID? Just why not? Where I am at people will steal a vote, I like to see it quantified how asking for ID limits voting.
