64%

[paulitician]

And btw, no one is forcing the Dear Leader to be the first $Billion Presidential Candidate in History. He could always say no and not accept the cash. Just a thought anyway.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Outside Money Making The Race A Rich Man's Game : NPR

For all of you math majors out there that means 64% of all the superPAC money raised thus far has come from 100 individual donors and has gone to pro-GOP groups.

Support public financing of elections. It'll cost us less in the long run.

While I don't like the idea of giving the government more authority, I have to agree. On balance, publicly-funded elections would be a net positive. I would add strict term limits to complete the package, to minimize the control that politicians and the moneyed few have over us.

I know the arguments against this. But the facts remain:

• Elected officials spend a great deal of time raising money rather than doing their job;
• Elected officials are paid-off servants to their highest bidders;
• Elected officials are controlled by a very small percentage of people;
• Elected officials make decisions based on pleasing their contributors, not on our best interests;

If this is okay with some of you, fine; not with me.

.

And any such measure enacting the above won’t pass Constitutional muster per Citizens United.

 

[kiwiman127]

How can people defend the buying the influence of those who are making laws for the select few, that effect all of us? In other words defending plutocracy.

 

[candycorn]

I have mixed opinions about this.

On the one hand, I don't want billionaires buying special favors from politicians via campaign contributions.
On the other hand, it's their money, shouldn't they be allowed to spend their money however they want to?

Is spending money a right? We're talking about free speech. When that much money is thrown around, it's no longer free.

Actually, spending money can be the exercise of ones freedom of speech and freedom of association. If I can afford to purchase a billboard, or radio time, or TV time to promote one candidate over another, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? Why should I not be allowed to spend as much of my own money as I want to in support of a candidate that I agree with? As long as I don't ask for special favors from said candidate, what am I doing that is wrong?

And do you think that those contributing tens of millions of dollars will remain mute when it comes to asking for favorable legislation?

 

[konradv]

Outside Money Making The Race A Rich Man's Game : NPR

For all of you math majors out there that means 64% of all the superPAC money raised thus far has come from 100 individual donors and has gone to pro-GOP groups.

Support public financing of elections. It'll cost us less in the long run.

Not only will it cost the taxpayer much more. It will also stiffle democracy.

It would mean politicians would have fewer expensive promises to keep, costing us less.

It would open up democracy, as previously outspent parties get a hearing.

I'm afraid you're 0-2.

 

[buckeye45_73]

How can people defend the buying the influence of those who are making laws for the select few, that effect all of us? In other words defending plutocracy.

Because we dont want govenment money in it. Why havent the democrats complained about union money in politics? Coporate money corrupts, but union money doesnt?
Public financed campaigns are just another tick towards government control, not interested. I trust Coca Cola, more than I trust Nancy Pelosi, sorry.

 

[candycorn]

How can people defend the buying the influence of those who are making laws for the select few, that effect all of us? In other words defending plutocracy.

Because we dont want govenment money in it. Why havent the democrats complained about union money in politics? Coporate money corrupts, but union money doesnt?
Public financed campaigns are just another tick towards government control, not interested. I trust Coca Cola, more than I trust Nancy Pelosi, sorry.

Do you trust Coca Cola more than Mitt Romeny?

Just curious.

 

[Paulie]

People on this board often bitch and moan about lobbyists and large political contributors. It is still the politician that casts the vote.

There's always going to be someone looking to buy favors with their wealth. But us little people are the ones constantly reelecting these politicians that are screwing us over, so who's REALLY at fault here?

Buying favors is illegal for both parties involved.
I usually vote against incumbents.

Well it's not officially buying favors if it's just political contributions, but we all know what these billionaires are paying for.

 

[konradv]

Actually, spending money can be the exercise of ones freedom of speech and freedom of association. If I can afford to purchase a billboard, or radio time, or TV time to promote one candidate over another, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? Why should I not be allowed to spend as much of my own money as I want to in support of a candidate that I agree with? As long as I don't ask for special favors from said candidate, what am I doing that is wrong?

How's that working? That's the whole point. Favors ARE being asked for and granted.

And there are laws against that.
Enforce the laws against it. Don't restrict the honest folk in lieu of enforcing the law.

Who's doing anything to honest folk? You'd have the same freedom of speech. The candidate, however, would not need your contributions, in order to protect the process from the "dishonest folk".

 

[Artevelde]

Support public financing of elections. It'll cost us less in the long run.

Not only will it cost the taxpayer much more. It will also stiffle democracy.

It would mean politicians would have fewer expensive promises to keep, costing us less.

It would open up democracy, as previously outspent parties get a hearing.

I'm afraid you're 0-2.

It means that the people who are in power get to determine who gets public money.

How much public money would you give to the candidate of the US Nazi Party?

 

[konradv]

How can people defend the buying the influence of those who are making laws for the select few, that effect all of us? In other words defending plutocracy.

Because we dont want govenment money in it. Why havent the democrats complained about union money in politics? Coporate money corrupts, but union money doesnt?
Public financed campaigns are just another tick towards government control, not interested. I trust Coca Cola, more than I trust Nancy Pelosi, sorry.

What makes you think unions wouldn't also be affected? Public financing means no one gives private contributions.

 

[konradv]

Not only will it cost the taxpayer much more. It will also stiffle democracy.

It would mean politicians would have fewer expensive promises to keep, costing us less.

It would open up democracy, as previously outspent parties get a hearing.

I'm afraid you're 0-2.

It means that the people who are in power get to determine who gets public money.

How much public money would you give to the candidate of the US Nazi Party?

That would be determined by statute after thresholds are met. Probably none for the Nazis. I envision a system of open-mikes and debates leading towards sub-primaries to determine who will receive funds for the next level.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How can people defend the buying the influence of those who are making laws for the select few that effect all of us? In other words defending plutocracy.

Buying influence is one thing, using one’s wealth to engage in political discourse another.

Right now, more than 80 percent of the money raised by superPACs has gone to pro-GOP groups.

To what effect? Are democrats being unduly influenced to vote for republicans? Or independents to vote for republicans? Or are these pro-GOP PACs merely preaching to the choir? What evidence is there that voters are being adversely effected?

It remains ultimately the responsibility of each voter to educate himself on the issues and vote in an informed, responsible manner; that some perceive voters as ‘stupid’ or ‘too lazy’ to indeed vote in an informed, responsible manner is not justification for the enactment of potentially un-Constitutional measures.

 

[paulitician]

Everyone has choices. No one is forced to vote for a particular candidate. You hate big money in Politics? Don't vote for candidates supported by big money. All the whining and hand-wringing is just so old & tired at this point. You decide for yourself who you're gonna vote for. You vote for the Big Money Candidate, then that's actually what you'll get. You have no right to complain afterwards.

Use the power of the Write-In Vote. Because a vote for either Obama or Romney, is a vote for Big Money control. I mean, how do people think they're both gonna run $Billion Presidential Campaigns? So stop the whining and do something. Your vote is your vote. Make it count.

 

[kiwiman127]

Everyone has choices. No one is forced to vote for a particular candidate. You hate big money in Politics? Don't vote for candidates supported by big money. All the whining and hand-wringing is just so old & tired at this point. You decide for yourself who you're gonna vote for. You vote for the Big Money Candidate, then that's actually what you'll get. You have no right to complain afterwards.

Use the power of the Write-In Vote. Because a vote for either Obama or Romney, is a vote for Big Money control. I mean, how do people think they're both gonna run $Billion Presidential Campaigns? So stop the whining and do something. Your vote is your vote. Make it count.

As long as Big Money has access to and can buy politicians, voting out one and replacing the with someone new is nothing but a revolving door. The new politician will just replace the old one but their hands will still be out. It's America's political culture, thanks to laws, written by the political whores and the courts who are part of the political culture..

 

[buckeye45_73]

How can people defend the buying the influence of those who are making laws for the select few, that effect all of us? In other words defending plutocracy.

Because we dont want govenment money in it. Why havent the democrats complained about union money in politics? Coporate money corrupts, but union money doesnt?
Public financed campaigns are just another tick towards government control, not interested. I trust Coca Cola, more than I trust Nancy Pelosi, sorry.

What makes you think unions wouldn't also be affected? Public financing means no one gives private contributions.

I just have never heard democrats talk about union contributions in a negative way. They have never said how they bought influence and outspend republicans alot of the time.
I'm not a big fan of money in politics, but it is, and I think they should change some rules. One is I dont think you should give to more than one candidate in a race, that is blatant buying influence, and I HATE that. If youre' gonna back a politician, choose the one you think might support you, that's what issue advocacy groups do. You dont see pro life or pro choice groups giving to both candidates.
Also no back room deals and NO, under NO circumstances do we pass legislation until it has been explained and vetted. The Nancy Pelosi model is a dictator's wet dream.

 

[paulitician]

Everyone has choices. No one is forced to vote for a particular candidate. You hate big money in Politics? Don't vote for candidates supported by big money. All the whining and hand-wringing is just so old & tired at this point. You decide for yourself who you're gonna vote for. You vote for the Big Money Candidate, then that's actually what you'll get. You have no right to complain afterwards.

Use the power of the Write-In Vote. Because a vote for either Obama or Romney, is a vote for Big Money control. I mean, how do people think they're both gonna run $Billion Presidential Campaigns? So stop the whining and do something. Your vote is your vote. Make it count.

As long as Big Money has access to and can buy politicians, voting out one and replacing the with someone new is nothing but a revolving door. The new politician will just replace the old one but their hands will still be out. It's America's political culture, thanks to laws, written by the political whores and the courts who are part of the political culture..

The People can do something. They're not completely helpless. No one is forcing them to vote for Obama or Romney. There are other options. You have the Write-In Vote option for example. Personally, i'm gonna vote for who i think is best. I'm not limiting myself to what the Press and both Political Parties tell me. More Americans just need to do the same. All the whining and hand-wringing will get you nowhere. You have to do something.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I have mixed opinions about this.

On the one hand, I don't want billionaires buying special favors from politicians via campaign contributions.
On the other hand, it's their money, shouldn't they be allowed to spend their money however they want to?

Since their sole intent is to influence American elections, shouldn't they fully disclose who they are? Suppose it's not their money they're using, but their companies' money, from a publicly owned corporation?

 

[tjvh]

I wonder if the 1%ers brought this subject up at Obama's $36.000.00 /plate fundraiser last week? Doubtful.

 

[Chris]

Right now, more than 80 percent of the money raised by superPACs has gone to pro-GOP groups. And, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, 80 percent of all the money raised by these groups has come from just 100 individuals — the wealthiest people in America.

Outside Money Making The Race A Rich Man's Game : NPR

For all of you math majors out there that means 64% of all the superPAC money raised thus far has come from 100 individual donors and has gone to pro-GOP groups.

The Republican Party represents the oil companies and the super rich.

They have fooled rank and file Republicans into thinking they don't.