Will flood of big money matter in congressional campaigns?

I gotta say that i think CR is making sense.

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

No, let us be really honest: members of the court, on both sides, often make decisions that they believe will benefit their party or ideological position. I have never claimed that the Libs are pure at heart, ever.

Ok, I take back my criticism. The way you posted your comment led me to believe (naturally, imo) that you believed other than what you subsequently wrote above. Forgive me Cy.

Honestly, my opinion in that case is divided. I think I understand the court's concern re donations being a way of expressing 1st amendment freedoms, but at the same time I desire to see political spending geared back for a number of reasons.

1 Reply

What is needed is for someone to successfully make a case that unlimited campaign spending represents a clear and present danger to the Republic.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Quote:
No, let us be really honest: members of the court, on both sides, often make decisions that they believe will benefit their party or ideological position. I have never claimed that the Libs are pure at heart, ever.

Ok, I take back my criticism. The way you posted your comment led me to believe (naturally, imo) that you believed other than what you subsequently wrote above. Forgive me Cy.

Honestly, my opinion in that case is divided. I think I understand the court's concern re donations being a way of expressing 1st amendment freedoms, but at the same time I desire to see political spending geared back for a number of reasons.

What kills me isn't the unlimited spending by corps and individuals, it's the fact that they aren't required to say who is spending the money! The Conservative argument for the longest time has been that, since people are smart and don't need some bureaucrat to think for them, they could look at who is giving all this money and make their own decision about whether or not to trust that person.

But now, who knows? You can't tell who is funding what attack ads. How are people supposed to make an informed decision in such an environment?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I'm an optimist, FM. I see two issues with any bilateral movement on anything. First, the members of congress are all too tied up in the notion that they have to go along with their party on issues if they wish their party to back them on issues near and dear to them. That is an inherent problem that I don't see a way around as long as we have two parties.

The second issue is the dialogue among the average citizens in the country. Look at these boards. How often do both sides resort to name calling? I'd submit that there are very few threads where one side or the other doesn't indulge in it. Sure, it may make the name caller feel superior (why, I don't know) but it does not move dialogue forward in any way and only tends to alienate the other side. The constant name calling of Bush and now Obama does not help bringing sides together. And yet it continues.

Unless something changes these two issues, I doubt we will soon see any meaningful bipartisan dialogue about changes that should be made.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

That's twice in one day Set. Dang, I knew we could get along, differences and all. Gonna have to buy you a drink if you ever get to Charleston.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I gotta agree that full disclosure would be nice. But there is too much money involved for all concerned that I don't believe any of them really want to change the system. It is easy to give lip service for changing something when you know in advance it ain't gonna happen.

Kinda like allowing members in your party to vote against a bill that you already know you have the votes to pass in order to help that one member with the voters back home.

0 Replies

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

Quote:

Will flood of big money matter in congressional campaigns?

It certainly mattered in the last Presidential campaigns... Obama has yet to open his books and fully disclosed were all of his donations came from.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

That is the point H2O. Money will always matter to some degree. Take the money out and elections may become at least a little bit more about the message. At the very least, candidates will spend more of their limited finances touting their own agenda and less on attack ads on their opponents.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

What kills me isn't the unlimited spending by corps and individuals, it's the fact that they aren't required to say who is spending the money!

Only if the organiization is a 501 c (4), All the indviduals and the 527's still require disclosure. LArge amounts of money are going into the 501's though.
Actually the USSC , in "Citizens" was infavor of having complete disclosure. They offered the opinion but left no direction to Congressw. Was that intentional?

0 Replies

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

October 11, 2010
Will flood of big money matter in congressional campaigns?
By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

"Not spending the money can help you lose," said Michael Munger, a political science professor at Duke University, "but it's not true that lots of spending means you'll win."

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/11/101894/will-flood-of-big-money-matter.html#ixzz129b1xrSq

I think that's about it. Of course, no one is going to vote for the worlds best candidate for anything if they haven't heard of him or her, unless they just go straight party ticket.

In Super Freakonomics, there was an idea that leading candidates attracted the most money, as opposed to the idea that money gave a candidate the lead. I don't recall how persuasively they defended the proposition.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Can anyone tell me how we can get information on a constitutionl admendment that would reinstate one person one vote and take the money out of politics?

2 Replies

@rabel22,

You mean allowing only tax paying land owners to vote?

0 Replies

@rabel22,

I think the proliferation of ads by anonymous people should be interpreted as 'freedom of speech' with a person's name(s) and not allow committee names without the people's names behind the organization being included.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

You mean you want a one page advertisment, followed by fifteen pages listing all the members of, say, United Auto Workers?

1 Reply

@roger,

No just the officers. I am more concerned about the "Americans for Job Security" without names.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

I pretty well understand where your concern lies.

1 Reply

@roger,

Methinks its them Wall Streeters! Shocked

0 Replies

Will flood of big money matter in congressional campaigns?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know