So It Doesn't Bother Anyone That Over 90% of the Winning Candiates...

[Manonthestreet]

Another problem is few candidates bother to craft a message of their own...simply spew party talking points which generates zero interest.

 

[blackhawk]

What I have noticed is people are only upset about big money in campaigns when their party or candidate loses.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Another liberal who pretends he/she has never heard of George Soros.

What a pack of liars!

 

[ChrisL]

Some suggestions:
1. A candidate may not collect any funds outside the geographic area he/she will represent. I.e. if you're running for a federal office to represent a state's constituency, no money from outside the state; if you're running for a state office, no money from outside the district you will represent; etc.
2. A candidate may spend no more on a campaign than they would earn for the office during the period for which they will serve. I.e. if a senator representing AK stands to earn say, $140,000/for six years, he/she may spend no more than $840,000 on their campaign.
3. Any excess contributions may be designated by the candidate as a contribution to a legitimate non-profit organization.
4. Limit the length of the campaign to some reasonable time, maybe 90 days? 6 months? Perhaps this way, our elected representatives would spend more time doing our business and less time perpetually campaigning.
NO PACs.
NO outside interference in local politics/affairs.

This all sounds more than reasonable to me.

 

[mudwhistle]

...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.​

Money can buy advertisements, which brings the issues before the voters that aren't paying attention.

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.

 

[Wake]

I do somewhat wonder how Seawytch would respond if the shoe were on the other foot, since she brought this topic up.

 

[kiwiman127]

Campaign contributions come from citizens and entities that would like to see that candidate win. Lot's of money means lots of support. Lots of support usually means lots of votes.

That's certainly not a true statement.
The Big Money that went into this election was from "the few" who influence our elected so called representation of all Americans.
You actually believe the the candidates who got the biggest total contributions proves "lot's of money means lots of support"? A very huge portion of our population has been spinning their wheels economically for the last three decades! They hardly have a pot to piss in, let alone make monetary political contributions to clueless politicians.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Liberals are always lying about getting "big money" out of elections.

But they ONLY want donors who donate to Republicans out.

If you asked them if Unions could no longer donate to elections and they would squawk like crazy.

They only want to dry the money out from their opponents.

Meanwhile they cheat like hell, like Clinton's Chinese Funny Money, and Unions who basically are a money laundering operation for the Democrats in the first place.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think it bothers everyone to certain extent but really addressing the problem makes anyone elected to national office seem hypocritical or afraid it might cost them an advantage. There is no electoral solution to the problem of money in politics, the big money has made sure of that.

There's an easy solution. Go back to the 1A that says Congress can make no law abridging free speech. Since money is speech, all laws restricting campaign finance are unconstitutional.

Do you also advocate putting out fires with gasoline?

Intelligent response. Not.
Do you have a better solution? All the solutions tried thus far are failures. They are unconsttutional restrictions of free speech and they force a candidate to spend most of his time on his fundraisers rather than getting his message out.
No limits. More money in politics.

 

[The Rabbi]

Campaign contributions come from citizens and entities that would like to see that candidate win. Lot's of money means lots of support. Lots of support usually means lots of votes.

That's certainly not a true statement.
The Big Money that went into this election was from "the few" who influence our elected so called representation of all Americans.
You actually believe the the candidates who got the biggest total contributions proves "lot's of money means lots of support"? A very huge portion of our population has been spinning their wheels economically for the last three decades! They hardly have a pot to piss in, let alone make monetary political contributions to clueless politicians.

Lots of unsupported and unsupportable statements here.
Please post a graph so you can demonstrate again how little you know.

 

[francoHFW]

Another liberal who pretends he/she has never heard of George Soros.

What a pack of liars!

Soros's money in campaigns and lobbying is a joke in comparison to the Kochs and Adelson. Media Matters is purely non-partisan in comparison to their pure propaganda and covert sabotage operations- fighting for pollution and screwing the workers, not for fact checking, democracy, and charity. The character assassination that the dupes believe about Soros is an atrocity...

 

[francoHFW]

I think it bothers everyone to certain extent but really addressing the problem makes anyone elected to national office seem hypocritical or afraid it might cost them an advantage. There is no electoral solution to the problem of money in politics, the big money has made sure of that.

There's an easy solution. Go back to the 1A that says Congress can make no law abridging free speech. Since money is speech, all laws restricting campaign finance are unconstitutional.

Do you also advocate putting out fires with gasoline?

Intelligent response. Not.
Do you have a better solution? All the solutions tried thus far are failures. They are unconsttutional restrictions of free speech and they force a candidate to spend most of his time on his fundraisers rather than getting his message out.
No limits. More money in politics.

Absolutely- to start with, all contributions and contributors to all campaigns and PACS, political ads, lobbying, etc must be reported, and there should be limits. Failures my ass.

 

[Rozman]

Another liberal who pretends he/she has never heard of George Soros.

What a pack of liars!

Soros's money in campaigns and lobbying is a joke in comparison to the Kochs and Adelson. Media Matters is purely non-partisan in comparison to their pure propaganda and covert sabotage operations- fighting for pollution and screwing the workers, not for fact checking, democracy, and charity. The character assassination that the dupes believe about Soros is an atrocity...

The character assassination that the dupes believe about Soros is an atrocity...

And what of Reid's hard on for the Koch boys?

 

[Iceweasel]

LOl. Just wait until 2016. Democrats aren't about to pull any funding.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Another liberal who pretends he/she has never heard of George Soros.

What a pack of liars!

Soros's money in campaigns and lobbying is a joke in comparison to the Kochs and Adelson. Media Matters is purely non-partisan in comparison to their pure propaganda and covert sabotage operations- fighting for pollution and screwing the workers, not for fact checking, democracy, and charity. The character assassination that the dupes believe about Soros is an atrocity...

Yeah, well you are either a liar or just so naive you really believe that BS you just posted.

BUT THE TRUTH IS Soros donates WAY more than Koch:

Compared To George Soros The Koch Brothers Are Amateurs...
Compared To George Soros The Koch Brothers Are Amateurs... CJOnline.com

 

[Ernie S.]

Another liberal who pretends he/she has never heard of George Soros.

What a pack of liars!

Soros's money in campaigns and lobbying is a joke in comparison to the Kochs and Adelson. Media Matters is purely non-partisan in comparison to their pure propaganda and covert sabotage operations- fighting for pollution and screwing the workers, not for fact checking, democracy, and charity. The character assassination that the dupes believe about Soros is an atrocity...

Please PM Cereal_Killer and ask to have neg rep revived.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Since money is speech, all laws restricting campaign finance are unconstitutional.

That is a fallacy perpetuated by the conservatives on the SCOTUS.

Essentially it means whomever has the most money can drown out the voices of the poor. That violates the equality under the law provision and is therefore unconstitutional. At some point in the future the Citizens United decision will be reversed just like the infamous Dred Scott decision.

 

[Missourian]

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?

I don't agree with any of that.

It's your money, you are free to do whatever you choose to do with it.

If you choose to give privately, it's no ones business but yours.

Liberals only support freedom and privacy until it benefits them not to.

 

[Missourian]

Since money is speech, all laws restricting campaign finance are unconstitutional.

That is a fallacy perpetuated by the conservatives on the SCOTUS.

Essentially it means whomever has the most money can drown out the voices of the poor. That violates the equality under the law provision and is therefore unconstitutional. At some point in the future the Citizens United decision will be reversed just like the infamous Dred Scott decision.

"Harrison Bergeron"

 

[saveliberty]

I know all about free speech rights, but out funding an opponent doesn't really seem to be about free speech or getting your message out.