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

[ChrisL]

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"

That's a little dramatic, I think.

 

[occupied]

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.

Do the people not deserve to at least know who is buying our corrupt politicians into office? No one expects privacy when out in public, elections are a public thing, not a private business matter between a big donor and the stooge they expect to do their bidding in government.

 

[Papageorgio]

...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.​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ter-in-elections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/

Did this bother you when Obama out spent his opponents in the last two elections?

 

[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.

"Harrison Bergeron"

None sequitur!

We are are talking about elections as opposed to equality of outcome.

 

[kiwiman127]

...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.

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.

Really Rabbi? As usual you post like a little loyal goose-stepper who is too lazy to think for themselves.
Try to read this and see if you can counter this with some facts.
Donor Demographics OpenSecrets

 

[Derideo_Te]

...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.​

Did this bother you when Obama out spent his opponents in the last two elections?

Yes, because the outcome should have been based upon policies and not funding.

 

[ChrisL]

...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.​

Did this bother you when Obama out spent his opponents in the last two elections?

Yes! I do think there should be caps on how much they are allowed to spend. That does not interfere in anyone's privacy either. They should be able to accept donations up to a certain point and then no more. It's pretty simple and would give the little guy a chance. As it is now, only the super rich and out of touch can succeed at getting their name and what they stand for out there. The others are simply brushed aside because they are basically unheard of. Sometimes they aren't even invited to debate, and we know nothing about them!

 

[The Rabbi]

...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.

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.

Really Rabbi? As usual you post like a little loyal goose-stepper who is too lazy to think for themselves.
Try to read this and see if you can counter this with some facts.
Donor Demographics OpenSecrets

LOL. You realize that doesnt support your contention, right?

 

[Roadrunner]

What?

you think humans are honest?
you think americans are smart?
you think elections are about qualifications?

How old are you?

They Left hates it when the Right matches them in fundraising.

 

[Roadrunner]

...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.​

Did this bother you when Obama out spent his opponents in the last two elections?

Yes! I do think there should be caps on how much they are allowed to spend. That does not interfere in anyone's privacy either. They should be able to accept donations up to a certain point and then no more. It's pretty simple and would give the little guy a chance. As it is now, only the super rich and out of touch can succeed at getting their name and what they stand for out there. The others are simply brushed aside because they are basically unheard of. Sometimes they aren't even invited to debate, and we know nothing about them!

Remove Party affiliation from the ballot, and the main problem would be solved.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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...

Frankie.....you are getting sleepy.....

 

[ChrisL]

...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.​

Did this bother you when Obama out spent his opponents in the last two elections?

Yes! I do think there should be caps on how much they are allowed to spend. That does not interfere in anyone's privacy either. They should be able to accept donations up to a certain point and then no more. It's pretty simple and would give the little guy a chance. As it is now, only the super rich and out of touch can succeed at getting their name and what they stand for out there. The others are simply brushed aside because they are basically unheard of. Sometimes they aren't even invited to debate, and we know nothing about them!

Remove Party affiliation from the ballot, and the main problem would be solved.

I don't see how that changes things. The candidates who are affiliated with the two major parties would still receive more funding, therefore more air time, etc. ?? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[whitehall]

Obama told republicans "elections have consequences" when he was swept into victory. Only losers whine about campaign contributions. In addition to non-stop democrat party fund raising events by Obama and the Klintons the left has a tax free spy and propaganda agency funded by former corporate pirate George Soros. Media Matters makes no secret of the fact that they exist to monitor (only) conservative speech and create political opinion. There is no such network on the right.

 

[The VOR]

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.

Do the people not deserve to at least know who is buying our corrupt politicians into office? No one expects privacy when out in public, elections are a public thing, not a private business matter between a big donor and the stooge they expect to do their bidding in government.

As I heard someone state before, all politicians should come to work dressed like race car drivers who wear patches of all of their sponsors on their uniforms. That way we would know exactly who paid for and owns each officeholder.

 

[CowboyTed]

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?

Didn't huge donations nourish the Left as well?

So bloody what?

You are so stupid about red and blue politics that you don't see that if this happened in a tin pot country in Africa it would be called bribery...

This includes Super PAC money, dark money, a lot of lobbying techniques.....

This goes against a vast majority (be it GOP or Dem) interests, yes you might win one election and loose another..
The truth is a first time congressman has to spend close to 8 hours a day trying to raise money for the next election, what is he saying to donors? Is he saying that he voting against their pet interests?

 

[ChrisL]

Obama told republicans "elections have consequences" when he was swept into victory. Only losers whine about campaign contributions. In addition to non-stop democrat party fund raising events by Obama and the Klintons the left has a tax free spy and propaganda agency funded by former corporate pirate George Soros. Media Matters makes no secret of the fact that they exist to monitor (only) conservative speech and create political opinion. There is no such network on the right.

Well, I can't stand the liberals and their sneaky deceptive ways. However, campaign contribution caps would make it fair on all sides, as far as monetary funding goes. That is a step in the right direction IMO, to take away some of the power of the two main parties that have monopolized our government for FAR too long.

 

[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.

Do the people not deserve to at least know who is buying our corrupt politicians into office? No one expects privacy when out in public, elections are a public thing, not a private business matter between a big donor and the stooge they expect to do their bidding in government.

If elections are public things, why do we keep votes private?

 

[AmericanFirst]

...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 is always that way. Ask obutthurt where he got his millions for the 2008 campaign and see what answer you get, not the truth. Soros comes to mind.

 

[occupied]

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.

Do the people not deserve to at least know who is buying our corrupt politicians into office? No one expects privacy when out in public, elections are a public thing, not a private business matter between a big donor and the stooge they expect to do their bidding in government.

If elections are public things, why do we keep votes private?

To protect the individual voters from the government, and even that is not all that private with people being required in most places to register party affiliation. Too bad conservatives are not as obsessed with keeping the money as honest as the individual voter.

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

Money is not speech, money is used to finance speech.