Would you donate money to a political party that you know is about to lose?

[SuperDemocrat]

I am not talking about small donors but I am more talking about large corporate donors that make up the bulk of the donations that both political parties receive. I think most corporations look at their annual donations as an "investment" which guarantees influence in the government. It wouldn't make sense to invest in a product that wasn't going to win in the marketplace so why would it make sense to invest in a canidate or political party that wasn't going to win an election.

 

[Spinster]

I am not talking about small donors but I am more talking about large corporate donors that make up the bulk of the donations that both political parties receive. I think most corporations look at their annual donations as an "investment" which guarantees influence in the government. It wouldn't make sense to invest in a product that wasn't going to win in the marketplace so why would it make sense to invest in a canidate or political party that wasn't going to win an election.

No, because politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth, promising one thing and doing something totally different. They cannot be trusted whatsoever. Why invest in an hopeful influence you know will never come through?

 

[my2¢]

I always thought it worked based on how the political party viewed your industry. Some examples. It doesn't make sense for a coal company, for example, to back the Democratic (clean energy) nominee no matter what the election outlook. Likewise a company the produces movies probably isn't going to support a Republican (censorship fears). Lawyers fear tort reform and so law firms generally are in the Democratic camp. Insurance companies historically have been Democratic.

 

[whitehall]

If you "knew" a political party was about to loose you could make a lot of money in Vegas. Nobody knows. That's why they contribute.

 

[Care4all]

I am not talking about small donors but I am more talking about large corporate donors that make up the bulk of the donations that both political parties receive. I think most corporations look at their annual donations as an "investment" which guarantees influence in the government. It wouldn't make sense to invest in a product that wasn't going to win in the marketplace so why would it make sense to invest in a canidate or political party that wasn't going to win an election.

I think I actually agree with your opinion on this,

and this is why Candidate campaign teams, and news sources that support them, like FOX supporting the RNC/Gop candidate, and Briebart, Drudge, CNS, WND, town Hall, the Washington Times etc etc etc etc....

Spread the LIE around that Romney was going to win the election, it was a shoe in for Romney etc etc etc....

SO THAT THE BIG DONORS would continue to donate to the campaign....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am not talking about small donors but I am more talking about large corporate donors that make up the bulk of the donations that both political parties receive. I think most corporations look at their annual donations as an "investment" which guarantees influence in the government. It wouldn't make sense to invest in a product that wasn't going to win in the marketplace so why would it make sense to invest in a canidate or political party that wasn't going to win an election.

If you look at campaign donations by companies, most contribute to both parties to cover all bases. Granted they favor one party over another, but still contribute to both.

So what happens to companies that don't participate? Just go back to Bill Clinton and Microsoft. Clinton had them sued for a million dollars a day because of a monopoly that never existed.

 

[S.J.]

Big donors know exactly what they're getting. No gamble to it. The more they contribute, the more they get in return. That's why they all want Trump OUT. He doesn't owe any of them ANY favors.

 

[konradv]

Politicians need money and special interests want access to power. That's why incumbents get more money regardless of party and win at such a high rate. Companies would rather invest in someone who is presently in office and can give them something right now, than bet on a maybe that doesn't pan out. If you'd rather not have our representatives sell their votes to the highest bidder, support the public financing of elections. If we're the ones paying the freight, we're the ones that will be listened to, instead of the big money special interests.

 

[S.J.]

Politicians need money and special interests want access to power. That's why incumbents get more money regardless of party and win at such a high rate. Companies would rather invest in someone who is presently in office and can give them something right now, than bet on a maybe that doesn't pan out. If you'd rather not have our representatives sell their votes to the highest bidder, support the public financing of elections. If we're the ones paying the freight, we're the ones that will be listened to, instead of the big money special interests.

Then you should be supporting Trump, as he is the only one running who is not beholden to the big corporations who own all the other candidates.

 

[Contumacious]

I am not talking about small donors but I am more talking about large corporate donors that make up the bulk of the donations that both political parties receive. I think most corporations look at their annual donations as an "investment" which guarantees influence in the government. It wouldn't make sense to invest in a product that wasn't going to win in the marketplace so why would it make sense to invest in a canidate or political party that wasn't going to win an election.

I contribute to the Libertarian Party - the Party of Principle - knowing full well that the narcotized will choose secuirty over liberty. The majority will vote vote for the individual(s) who promise a free lunch, something for nothing . He she who promises to continue the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state .

Contributing to the party of Principles warms the cockles of my heart.


.

 

[blackhawk]

I wouldn't donate money to a political party I thought was going to win.

 

[konradv]

If you'd rather not have our representatives sell their votes to the highest bidder, support the public financing of elections. If we're the ones paying the freight, we're the ones that will be listened to, instead of the big money special interests.

Then you should be supporting Trump, as he is the only one running who is not beholden to the big corporations who own all the other candidates.

He's just one guy and hasn't said a thing about public financing. I want this for the long haul, not just a cycle or two.

 

[S.J.]

If you'd rather not have our representatives sell their votes to the highest bidder, support the public financing of elections. If we're the ones paying the freight, we're the ones that will be listened to, instead of the big money special interests.

Then you should be supporting Trump, as he is the only one running who is not beholden to the big corporations who own all the other candidates.

He's just one guy and hasn't said a thing about public financing. I want this for the long haul, not just a cycle or two.

That's because he's not a socialist like you.