Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I suppose you overlooked the fact that this image does NOT hold a single Democrat supporting organization? Where is SCIU, Teamsters, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, The New York Times, Media Matters, the DNC, George Soros, etc..,etc..[/QUOTE]one of the many reasons I don't vote
one of the many reasons I don't vote
Good. You're one of the reasons the Democrats lost.one of the many reasons I don't vote
It's almost like you haven't read anything I've written. My issue is with dark money mega-spending by billionaires and large multi-nationals. At this point I would settle for disclosure alone without limits, at least we would know who is bankrolling who. From what I can see these mega donations are helping the two party system turn into a single two winged plutocrat party rather than helping anyone run third-party. What third party candidates I can think of were still underfunded and still only got votes for "none of the above" rather than because they had anything of value to offer voters.It isn't the money. Its the fact that you are losing.
No, the problem is national. We already see it played out on a national scale.This shit isn't a local problem and you know it, Republicans want the megabucks that unpopular industries want to give out (tobacco, big banks, big pharma, MIC) and do not want people to know it. No one gives a damn about modest individual donations to candidates, it's the megadonations with clear strings attached that are at issue.So, you want the ability of the media and other organizations to slander and trash people who give money to candidates? Don't you even know why we keep donations quiet and anonymous?The Left has not utilized vast sums of money in politics, either?
Yes they do. Want to stop them? I want to stop the "dark money", the huge donations, the Super Pacs, etc. from everywhere and to anyone. I support a limit on donations. Donations, IMO, should be from individuals only, not secret and be a limited amount. You?
Donate to a local Republican and before you know it, Union thugs are banging on your door or destroying your car. And please don't say that it is fantasy. It HAS happened in the past and will again in the future if we allow the rogue elements of politics access to donor information.
The problem is that YOU want to limit specific organizations from donating money so that YOUR ideology can win. You could care less about the rights and free speech of others if it violates your political position.
There are literally hundreds of organizations such as Shriners, or Make a Wish, or Alzheimer's organizations that contribute large sums of money to advocate for their particular interest. They have this right because we have the right as individuals and as a collective, to petition the government for change in existing laws, or to form laws that make things easier for these organizations to do business. These organizations are made up of PEOPLE who band together to get their voice heard because in a sea of 320 million voices, no one single voice can stand out without an organization of like minded people.
This is a RIGHT and government is instituted by men to protect our rights, not to hand them out or remove them.
This means that sometimes, organizations we disagree with get a voice too. And sometimes, those voices are louder than yours and they manage to win a few now an again. It is the price of freedom.
So, no. I do NOT want speech limited and banding together and pooling resources to help that speech to be heard is something that is necessary.
Better you and the rest of this nation should concentrate on removing the barriers to getting elected to office by the ONLY two parties that are allowed to run. No one seems to ever speak about how both parties set impossibly high barriers to running as a third party candidate.
It's almost like you haven't read anything I've written. My issue is with dark money mega-spending by billionaires and large multi-nationals. At this point I would settle for disclosure alone without limits, at least we would know who is bankrolling who. From what I can see these mega donations are helping the two party system turn into a single two winged plutocrat party rather than helping anyone run third-party. What third party candidates I can think of were still underfunded and still only got votes for "none of the above" rather than because they had anything of value to offer voters.It isn't the money. Its the fact that you are losing.
No, the problem is national. We already see it played out on a national scale.This shit isn't a local problem and you know it, Republicans want the megabucks that unpopular industries want to give out (tobacco, big banks, big pharma, MIC) and do not want people to know it. No one gives a damn about modest individual donations to candidates, it's the megadonations with clear strings attached that are at issue.So, you want the ability of the media and other organizations to slander and trash people who give money to candidates? Don't you even know why we keep donations quiet and anonymous?The Left has not utilized vast sums of money in politics, either?
Yes they do. Want to stop them? I want to stop the "dark money", the huge donations, the Super Pacs, etc. from everywhere and to anyone. I support a limit on donations. Donations, IMO, should be from individuals only, not secret and be a limited amount. You?
Donate to a local Republican and before you know it, Union thugs are banging on your door or destroying your car. And please don't say that it is fantasy. It HAS happened in the past and will again in the future if we allow the rogue elements of politics access to donor information.
The problem is that YOU want to limit specific organizations from donating money so that YOUR ideology can win. You could care less about the rights and free speech of others if it violates your political position.
There are literally hundreds of organizations such as Shriners, or Make a Wish, or Alzheimer's organizations that contribute large sums of money to advocate for their particular interest. They have this right because we have the right as individuals and as a collective, to petition the government for change in existing laws, or to form laws that make things easier for these organizations to do business. These organizations are made up of PEOPLE who band together to get their voice heard because in a sea of 320 million voices, no one single voice can stand out without an organization of like minded people.
This is a RIGHT and government is instituted by men to protect our rights, not to hand them out or remove them.
This means that sometimes, organizations we disagree with get a voice too. And sometimes, those voices are louder than yours and they manage to win a few now an again. It is the price of freedom.
So, no. I do NOT want speech limited and banding together and pooling resources to help that speech to be heard is something that is necessary.
Better you and the rest of this nation should concentrate on removing the barriers to getting elected to office by the ONLY two parties that are allowed to run. No one seems to ever speak about how both parties set impossibly high barriers to running as a third party candidate.
I really would like to make something clear, I am not seeking an advantage for a party, I am seeking a return of populism to politics where the small donors will again matter and there is a price to selling out. Right now there is no monetary cost to pandering to special interests. There is in fact an incentive to sell us out to big business as it is richly rewarded with cushy jobs when their corrupt, self serving asses finally get voted out.
What do you make of the fact that the entire MSNBC operation is an in-kind donation from Comcast to the Democrats?
considering the left claims to be against the rich and money in politics it sure didn;t stop them from voting for the rich democrats
I do somewhat wonder how Seawytch would respond if the shoe were on the other foot, since she brought this topic up.
considering the left claims to be against the rich and money in politics it sure didn;t stop them from voting for the rich democrats
The left never claimed to be against the rich, the right said they are against the rich.
Lets be real here.It's almost like you haven't read anything I've written. My issue is with dark money mega-spending by billionaires and large multi-nationals. At this point I would settle for disclosure alone without limits, at least we would know who is bankrolling who. From what I can see these mega donations are helping the two party system turn into a single two winged plutocrat party rather than helping anyone run third-party. What third party candidates I can think of were still underfunded and still only got votes for "none of the above" rather than because they had anything of value to offer voters.It isn't the money. Its the fact that you are losing.
No, the problem is national. We already see it played out on a national scale.This shit isn't a local problem and you know it, Republicans want the megabucks that unpopular industries want to give out (tobacco, big banks, big pharma, MIC) and do not want people to know it. No one gives a damn about modest individual donations to candidates, it's the megadonations with clear strings attached that are at issue.So, you want the ability of the media and other organizations to slander and trash people who give money to candidates? Don't you even know why we keep donations quiet and anonymous?The Left has not utilized vast sums of money in politics, either?
Yes they do. Want to stop them? I want to stop the "dark money", the huge donations, the Super Pacs, etc. from everywhere and to anyone. I support a limit on donations. Donations, IMO, should be from individuals only, not secret and be a limited amount. You?
Donate to a local Republican and before you know it, Union thugs are banging on your door or destroying your car. And please don't say that it is fantasy. It HAS happened in the past and will again in the future if we allow the rogue elements of politics access to donor information.
The problem is that YOU want to limit specific organizations from donating money so that YOUR ideology can win. You could care less about the rights and free speech of others if it violates your political position.
There are literally hundreds of organizations such as Shriners, or Make a Wish, or Alzheimer's organizations that contribute large sums of money to advocate for their particular interest. They have this right because we have the right as individuals and as a collective, to petition the government for change in existing laws, or to form laws that make things easier for these organizations to do business. These organizations are made up of PEOPLE who band together to get their voice heard because in a sea of 320 million voices, no one single voice can stand out without an organization of like minded people.
This is a RIGHT and government is instituted by men to protect our rights, not to hand them out or remove them.
This means that sometimes, organizations we disagree with get a voice too. And sometimes, those voices are louder than yours and they manage to win a few now an again. It is the price of freedom.
So, no. I do NOT want speech limited and banding together and pooling resources to help that speech to be heard is something that is necessary.
Better you and the rest of this nation should concentrate on removing the barriers to getting elected to office by the ONLY two parties that are allowed to run. No one seems to ever speak about how both parties set impossibly high barriers to running as a third party candidate.
I really would like to make something clear, I am not seeking an advantage for a party, I am seeking a return of populism to politics where the small donors will again matter and there is a price to selling out. Right now there is no monetary cost to pandering to special interests. There is in fact an incentive to sell us out to big business as it is richly rewarded with cushy jobs when their corrupt, self serving asses finally get voted out.
I would rather they spent their money telling me what they would do, if elected. As it stands now, the candidates seem obsessed with smearing their opponents.Money can buy advertisements, which brings the issues before the voters that aren't paying attention....Are the ones with the most money?
91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins
The chart analyzes 467 congressional races held in 2012. Its findings:
* Candidates who out-fundraised their opponents were nine times more likely to win elections in 2012.
* Winning congressional candidates outspent their opponents by about 20 to 1.
And in these latest midterms?
Money Won on Tuesday, But the Rules of the Game Have Changed
The real story of the election’s campaign finance chapter was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors using outside groups to bury voters with an avalanche of spending. Both sides had plenty of support from outside spenders, but Republican and conservative outside groups outpaced the spending of Democratic and liberal ones. Democratic/liberal groups channeled most of their money through organizations that disclosed donors, while their more conservative counterparts relied heavily on secret sources funneling money through political nonprofits.
Some things seem never to change, and this year’s midterms reprised many of the same old stories. But there were also a handful of surprises, some of which may portend new dynamics in how elections are financed.
Every election since 1998 has been more expensive than the one before it, and predictably the 2014 election will follow that path, CRP has projected — though the total projected cost of $3.67 billion is only a slight uptick over the price tag of the 2010 midterm. Counting all forms of spending — by candidates, parties and outside groups — Team Red is projected to have spent $1.75 billion, while Team Blue’s spending is projected to ring in at $1.64 billion.
CRP’s analysis of last night’s results finds that in House races, the candidate who spent the most prevailed 94.2 percent of the time; the Senate figure is slightly lower, 81.8 percent. Despite several key upsets of Senate Democrats who, as incumbents, had the cash advantage, this is actually an increase from 2012, when 93.8 percent of higher-spending candidates in the House won, and just 75.8 percent of those candidates in the Senate could claim victory.
It also makes it possible for groups that support one candidate over another to lie about their opponent.
It's up to us to stay informed so we don't fall of the lies.
well,if they hadn't smeared Romney obama would have lost...and since Romney didn't smear obama....he lost....
thats right.....if the guy's from the "parties" cant convince me to vote for them....thats on them.....It does bother me. This is the reason why most 3rd party candidates don't stand a chance. They don't have the funding that is provided to the major parties with their PAC organizations. Why don't we have caps on the amount of money candidates are allowed to spend on their campaigns?
Don't 3rd party candidates actually distort the results of national elections? In 2000, Gore would have been elected. Some argue that 9/11 wouldn't have occurred, and there's more than enough evidence that the economic crash of 2008 wouldn't have occurred.
I vote for the candidate that most represents me and my views. If that's a third party candidate, then that's who I vote for. If that screws things up for YOUR candidate, then that's too bad I suppose.
thats right.....if the guy's from the "parties" cant convince me to vote for them....thats on them.....It does bother me. This is the reason why most 3rd party candidates don't stand a chance. They don't have the funding that is provided to the major parties with their PAC organizations. Why don't we have caps on the amount of money candidates are allowed to spend on their campaigns?
Don't 3rd party candidates actually distort the results of national elections? In 2000, Gore would have been elected. Some argue that 9/11 wouldn't have occurred, and there's more than enough evidence that the economic crash of 2008 wouldn't have occurred.
I vote for the candidate that most represents me and my views. If that's a third party candidate, then that's who I vote for. If that screws things up for YOUR candidate, then that's too bad I suppose.
You're not going to see that. For a candidate to tell you what they actually plan to do in any detail would open themselves up to criticism. Condemning their opponent and speaking in generalities is a safe proven method for winning. If you say it loud enough and often enough, people will believe you and they will have absolutely no idea as what you really going to do.I would rather they spent their money telling me what they would do, if elected. As it stands now, the candidates seem obsessed with smearing their opponents.Money can buy advertisements, which brings the issues before the voters that aren't paying attention....Are the ones with the most money?
91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins
The chart analyzes 467 congressional races held in 2012. Its findings:
* Candidates who out-fundraised their opponents were nine times more likely to win elections in 2012.
* Winning congressional candidates outspent their opponents by about 20 to 1.
And in these latest midterms?
Money Won on Tuesday, But the Rules of the Game Have Changed
The real story of the election’s campaign finance chapter was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors using outside groups to bury voters with an avalanche of spending. Both sides had plenty of support from outside spenders, but Republican and conservative outside groups outpaced the spending of Democratic and liberal ones. Democratic/liberal groups channeled most of their money through organizations that disclosed donors, while their more conservative counterparts relied heavily on secret sources funneling money through political nonprofits.
Some things seem never to change, and this year’s midterms reprised many of the same old stories. But there were also a handful of surprises, some of which may portend new dynamics in how elections are financed.
Every election since 1998 has been more expensive than the one before it, and predictably the 2014 election will follow that path, CRP has projected — though the total projected cost of $3.67 billion is only a slight uptick over the price tag of the 2010 midterm. Counting all forms of spending — by candidates, parties and outside groups — Team Red is projected to have spent $1.75 billion, while Team Blue’s spending is projected to ring in at $1.64 billion.
CRP’s analysis of last night’s results finds that in House races, the candidate who spent the most prevailed 94.2 percent of the time; the Senate figure is slightly lower, 81.8 percent. Despite several key upsets of Senate Democrats who, as incumbents, had the cash advantage, this is actually an increase from 2012, when 93.8 percent of higher-spending candidates in the House won, and just 75.8 percent of those candidates in the Senate could claim victory.
It also makes it possible for groups that support one candidate over another to lie about their opponent.
It's up to us to stay informed so we don't fall of the lies.
...Are the ones with the most money?
91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins
The chart analyzes 467 congressional races held in 2012. Its findings:
* Candidates who out-fundraised their opponents were nine times more likely to win elections in 2012.
* Winning congressional candidates outspent their opponents by about 20 to 1.
And in these latest midterms?
Money Won on Tuesday, But the Rules of the Game Have Changed
The real story of the election’s campaign finance chapter was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors using outside groups to bury voters with an avalanche of spending. Both sides had plenty of support from outside spenders, but Republican and conservative outside groups outpaced the spending of Democratic and liberal ones. Democratic/liberal groups channeled most of their money through organizations that disclosed donors, while their more conservative counterparts relied heavily on secret sources funneling money through political nonprofits.
Some things seem never to change, and this year’s midterms reprised many of the same old stories. But there were also a handful of surprises, some of which may portend new dynamics in how elections are financed.
Every election since 1998 has been more expensive than the one before it, and predictably the 2014 election will follow that path, CRP has projected — though the total projected cost of $3.67 billion is only a slight uptick over the price tag of the 2010 midterm. Counting all forms of spending — by candidates, parties and outside groups — Team Red is projected to have spent $1.75 billion, while Team Blue’s spending is projected to ring in at $1.64 billion.
CRP’s analysis of last night’s results finds that in House races, the candidate who spent the most prevailed 94.2 percent of the time; the Senate figure is slightly lower, 81.8 percent. Despite several key upsets of Senate Democrats who, as incumbents, had the cash advantage, this is actually an increase from 2012, when 93.8 percent of higher-spending candidates in the House won, and just 75.8 percent of those candidates in the Senate could claim victory.
