Why do elections cost so much?

[KNB]

Dave Brat reportedly won a major electoral victory for barely $100,000. It was reported that Eric Cantor's campaign spent more on steak dinners than the total amount spent by Dave Brat's campaign.

Since it is obviously possible to win a high-profile election for barely $100k then why do we need SuperPACs? Why are there billions of dollars flowing through our elections? Why is "big money" in politics if it doesn't require big money? If a candidate is worthwhile then it shouldn't be very difficult to raise $100k for a campaign.

Perhaps America should pass the Dave Brat Victory Bill which would make $100k the total limit that can be spent by any particular candidate on their campaign.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Dave Brat reportedly won a major electoral victory for barely $100,000. It was reported that Eric Cantor's campaign spent more on steak dinners than the total amount spent by Dave Brat's campaign.

Since it is obviously possible to win a high-profile election for barely $100k then why do we need SuperPACs? Why are there billions of dollars flowing through our elections? Why is "big money" in politics if it doesn't require big money? If a candidate is worthwhile then it shouldn't be very difficult to raise $100k for a campaign.

Perhaps America should pass the Dave Brat Victory Bill which would make $100k the total limit that can be spent by any particular candidate on their campaign.

This is an anomaly, not the norm, unfortunately. As Jon Stewart said, to paraphrase with a large dose of sarcasm, this is totally out of synch with the Supreme Court's wish for electing officials (Citizen's United).

I suspect that Cantor was worse at taking care of things at home than he's being portrayed in the media. His district in Virginia is not exactly Massachusetts or Vermont. Good for them for showing him the door, even if it was in favor of a Tea Bagger.

OR....Brat, being a financial geek, really figured out a way to hide all that Koch brother's money in his campaign funds.

 

[Indeependent]

People simply voted any row that wasn't Republican.

 

[KNB]

What if we decide that $100k will be the norm for an election campaign?

 

[OnePercenter]

What if we decide that $100k will be the norm for an election campaign?

The Dark Money Machine That Beat Eric Cantor

 

[Missouri_Mike]

People simply voted any row that wasn't Republican.

It was the republican primary you idiot.

 

[FA_Q2]

Dave Brat reportedly won a major electoral victory for barely $100,000. It was reported that Eric Cantor's campaign spent more on steak dinners than the total amount spent by Dave Brat's campaign.

Since it is obviously possible to win a high-profile election for barely $100k then why do we need SuperPACs? Why are there billions of dollars flowing through our elections? Why is "big money" in politics if it doesn't require big money? If a candidate is worthwhile then it shouldn't be very difficult to raise $100k for a campaign.

Perhaps America should pass the Dave Brat Victory Bill which would make $100k the total limit that can be spent by any particular candidate on their campaign.

Perhaps Americans can simply vote what they want instead of demanding that the government control the elections for them.

I know a novel idea right. Actually voting for someone rather than demanding that it was the MONEY that voted for you.

And we wonder shy politicians and politics is filled with bullshit. As long as we have the asinine apathetic electorate nothing is going to change.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Dave Brat reportedly won a major electoral victory for barely $100,000. It was reported that Eric Cantor's campaign spent more on steak dinners than the total amount spent by Dave Brat's campaign.

Since it is obviously possible to win a high-profile election for barely $100k then why do we need SuperPACs? Why are there billions of dollars flowing through our elections? Why is "big money" in politics if it doesn't require big money? If a candidate is worthwhile then it shouldn't be very difficult to raise $100k for a campaign.

Perhaps America should pass the Dave Brat Victory Bill which would make $100k the total limit that can be spent by any particular candidate on their campaign.

ohhhhhhh don't tell Obama he spent near 2 BILLION to get elected twice.

 

[Avatar4321]

Dave Brat reportedly won a major electoral victory for barely $100,000. It was reported that Eric Cantor's campaign spent more on steak dinners than the total amount spent by Dave Brat's campaign.

Since it is obviously possible to win a high-profile election for barely $100k then why do we need SuperPACs? Why are there billions of dollars flowing through our elections? Why is "big money" in politics if it doesn't require big money? If a candidate is worthwhile then it shouldn't be very difficult to raise $100k for a campaign.

Perhaps America should pass the Dave Brat Victory Bill which would make $100k the total limit that can be spent by any particular candidate on their campaign.

Why do you have a problem with people freely spending their money to support a candidate? Why shouldn't we be free to do so?

Why on earth are you so eager to stop people from supporting political candidates?

You realize that if we did what you actually suggested, we would virtually ensure that the incumbents almost always kept their seats. Why do you think McCain-Fiengold had bipartisan support? It wasn't because it helped the people kick people out of Washington. Or did you really think that corrupt politicians were trying to make the system "more honest"?

 

[Political Junky]

We should have publicly funded elections.

 

[shart_attack]

What if we decide that $100k will be the norm for an election campaign?

The Dark Money Machine That Beat Eric Cantor

A paragraph from that article says all one needs to know about it.

In fact, you could argue that he pretty much owes his job to people like the Koch brothers and their cronies. John Allison, the former CEO of BB&T bank and the current head of the Koch-founded Cato Institute, gave Brat's college a $500,000 fellowship back in 2010 so he could teach Ayn Rand and libertarianism at Randolph Macon University. Like hundreds of other college professors across the country these days, David Brat is really just a bought-and-paid-for shill of Charles and David Koch and their buddies.

LOL. So he has a relationship that is essentially the equivalent of our current commander-in-chief's relationship to ACORN, corporations like General Electric (which, interestingly enough, the CIC bailed out; go figure) and on a much smaller scale than the Koch brothers, the infamous lowlife George Soros.

And we certainly don't want today's dumbed-down Millenials to read and understand some of the points Ayn Rand made, do we? What will the Democratic Party do if tomorrow, some of the kids on whom the hopes of our country's future lie actually want to rely on themselves, and not bigger government?

You've no doubt heard this maxim:

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a week.
Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."​

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with teaching our future leaders how to fish. And that's what Ayn Rand's novels do.

 

[OnePercenter]

What if we decide that $100k will be the norm for an election campaign?

The Dark Money Machine That Beat Eric Cantor

A paragraph from that article says all one needs to know about it.

In fact, you could argue that he pretty much owes his job to people like the Koch brothers and their cronies. John Allison, the former CEO of BB&T bank and the current head of the Koch-founded Cato Institute, gave Brat's college a $500,000 fellowship back in 2010 so he could teach Ayn Rand and libertarianism at Randolph Macon University. Like hundreds of other college professors across the country these days, David Brat is really just a bought-and-paid-for shill of Charles and David Koch and their buddies.

LOL. So he has a relationship that is essentially the equivalent of our current commander-in-chief's relationship to ACORN, corporations like General Electric (which, interestingly enough, the CIC bailed out; go figure) and on a much smaller scale than the Koch brothers, the infamous lowlife George Soros.

And we certainly don't want today's dumbed-down Millenials to read and understand some of the points Ayn Rand made, do we? What will the Democratic Party do if tomorrow, some of the kids on whom the hopes of our country's future lie actually want to rely on themselves, and not bigger government?

You've no doubt heard this maxim:

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a week.
Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."​

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with teaching our future leaders how to fish. And that's what Ayn Rand's novels do.

Pay a man enough to buy a fish and you'll have a great employee for a lifetime....and happy customers too!