I notice the complaints about money in politics have been muted this campaign season.

Wondering why ?

Democrats dominated Republicans in money races across the House map and in key Senate contests with three weeks left before midterm elections.

The Democrats’ campaign arm says 110 House Democratic candidates outraised Republican incumbents or the GOP nominees in open seats. At least 60 Democrats topped $1 million in fundraising during the quarter, according to a party analysis, with several posting eye-popping hauls in excess of $2 million and even $3 million.



https://www.apnews.com/a5ab6967b01f4d6aae546966b7454418

In a statement, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said the ‘historic’ levels of money have expanded “the battlefield to create many paths to the 23 seats we need to flip the House.” However ;as Evita proved ,having a big campaign treasure chest doesn't guarantee victory .

I notice the complaints about money in politics have been muted this campaign season.

Wondering why ?


Money itself is not the problem - of course money is required to get the message across. It is the SOURCE of the money that skews the system.

Corporations and interest groups fund politicians who will vote for their interests by donating huge amounts of money supporting a candidate's politics. The ordinary voter cannot compete with this so these politicians are essentially bought by the moneyed interests.

In Citizens United, Scalia led the Court to declare these entities "persons" and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Common sense tells us this is nonsense.

"A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold". A dissenting opinion from Justice Stevens.

"If you can't beat 'em join 'em"

They changed the rules so you have to adjust, or you end up with a knife at a gunfight. Who does that, and expects to survive?

Corporations and interest groups fund politicians who will vote for their interests by donating huge amounts of money supporting a candidate's politics. The ordinary voter cannot compete with this so these politicians are essentially bought by the moneyed interests.
Evidently the "ordinary voter "can compete if this false premise that corporations only donate to Republicans is true ,because apparently the Dems are kicking butt raising money this season . Union and organizations like the NAACP ,and the Sierra Club are corporations who represent the interests of their membership. I'm sure you would not deny them their 1st amendment speech and financial support to candidates campaigns who address their areas of concern ;and to denounce candidates who's positions are in opposition to their areas of concern.
The majority opinion noted that “political speech is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.”
Do you really think the decision was so bad ? Since the decision ,more and more candidates preferred by the party establishment have faces primary challenges . That almost never happened before Citizen's United .The reason the funding stats have happened is that since Super Pacs no longer face restrictions ,citizens with common interests have united .Thousands of small donors have united with organized donation drives like "crowd funding ". Recently CORPORATIONS with names like Maine People's Alliance and Mainers for Accountable Leadership have led the drive to fund opposition to Susan Collins .
(https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/News_FiveQuotes_Scalia.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2015/09/24/five-quotes-justice-antonin-scalia-defends-free-speech/&h=185&w=305&tbnid=WH6ofE0ht7cLlM:&q=quotes+citizens+united+majority+opinion+scalia&tbnh=160&tbnw=263&usg=AI4_-kSj3z_mFC9wuj6as6l26T-lGKOOQw&vet=1&docid=4liyviHX7SqdGM&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj09c6U1Y7eAhXNT98KHVUTCwIQ9QEwAHoECAkQB g)


(https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/News_FiveQuotes_Scalia.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2015/09/24/five-quotes-justice-antonin-scalia-defends-free-speech/&h=185&w=305&tbnid=WH6ofE0ht7cLlM:&q=quotes+citizens+united+majority+opinion+scalia&tbnh=160&tbnw=263&usg=AI4_-kSj3z_mFC9wuj6as6l26T-lGKOOQw&vet=1&docid=4liyviHX7SqdGM&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj09c6U1Y7eAhXNT98KHVUTCwIQ9QEwAHoECAkQB g)

The issue was DARK money from undisclosed sources as I remember correctly, so how about we put a name on those dollars? Then we can judge a citizens group from a corporate FRONT.

no that is the issue you are making . That was not the issue in Citizens . It was a film maker who made a movie that Evita didn't like .
These crowd funding groups do not have to disclose the names of the donors AND there are rules that bigger donors have to be revealed (over $200) .However ,the pejorative , so called 'dark money' ,is typically not revealed by 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) corps from both sides of the political divide . Why is that a problem ? It is a hell of a lot better than forcing me to contribute through my tax dollars through so called 'public funding' of elections aka 'the incumbent protection plan'. And why should a donor be forced to be disclosed ? It is nobody's business but my own who I contribute to and what causes I support .

Under your plan someone who donates to a cause or politician you don't like is subject to all types of bullcr@p retribution and harassment from the activist mobs . Look at all the boycotts . Anonymous political speech has been the scorn of entrenched powers throughout history . Anonymous speech and political sponsorship was the standard for the founding generation . The Federalist Papers ,Thomas Paine all published under a pseudonym. Under today's rules they would be forced to register with the entrenched government and their identities revealed . Protecting anonymity is a principle central to protecting our Western tradition of reasoned, public debate.

It's no different Tom than employers who make you work on election day, or the even more pervasive practice of demanding social network contacts or religious affiliations for employment, or forced participation by workers for preferred candidates or dictating what's acceptable for employers as far as freedom of expression by employees.

Ask Colin Kaepernick about that one. That's not to say that public funding is the answer, as I would not like that either, but dark money could be from anybody even VLAD. That's unacceptable too. What of Adelson giving gobs of money or Soros? I'm not down with that.

or the emperor could collect bundled money below the disclosure amount from foreign donors as he did with his internet fund raising . What is your point ? Americans by right have freedom of association and speech. Giving a donation is an expression of political speech and if I choose to do it without disclosure it is within my right . Your teachers have their dues money collected from the union and the union in turn financially and with ads supports candidates they feel will advance their cause . Where is the difference ?

You make my case that there should be NO money in politics.

Please ! Then how does one fund a campaign ? You do understand it takes money to get your message out . That always was the case . Unless you are Ben Franklin and charge people for your message or you are independently wealthy ,then there is no option but to have money in politics ;and yes ,the more well funded have always have had the advantage . However , more often it is the message that counts . Your options are private funding or taking it from the taxpayer . I oppose public funding and believe it is no one else's business who or what cause I financially support (as long as it is legal activity ) .

Money talks, you know that, and nowhere does it talk more than in politics with every candidate being bought one way or another. You should be thankful that Trump hasn't been bought yet

Please ! Then how does one fund a campaign ? You do understand it takes money to get your message out . That always was the case . Unless you are Ben Franklin and charge people for your message or you are independently wealthy ,then there is no option but to have money in politics ;and yes ,the more well funded have always have had the advantage . However , more often it is the message that counts . Your options are private funding or taking it from the taxpayer . I oppose public funding and believe it is no one else's business who or what cause I financially support (as long as it is legal activity ) .

Well that might explain why we got a lying cheating dufus in the oval office.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/166/16697/1669762.gif



Money talks, you know that, and nowhere does it talk more than in politics with every candidate being bought one way or another. You should be thankful that Trump hasn't been bought yet


Obviously he WAS bought and paid for long ago, they just gave him a pen to sign his name on their BS! A return on their investment.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2Fcache%2Flw600%2F166%2F16697%2F1669772.jpg&t=1539961735&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1c3d-6d0001015900&sig=mXIlIXOxuph8F9c5535hew--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/jeffdanziger/s-2136359?ezine=640&r=wqGLEk0pFr8HVNkiHyUMtxu3fReiBWExBZmBgiZvjHxDOjUx MDM2OTA1Oko6MTc5NjYxMzpMOjY0MDpSOjQyNjkyMjpTOjIxMz YzNTk6Vjo1NQ)

Thanks Tom. You got what you wanted.

Money has ALWAYS been a factor in politics . It is comical that you think it began with Trump.

Yeah. There was certainly no dirty money in the Clinton campaign. I mean, just ask Soros if you don't believe it. If you dems want people to listen to your complaints, you might want to clean up your own house first. Otherwise...

omg it's true ? Foreign money paid for ads and social media activists to sway American opinions in 2016 !!!!
Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova, Mueller got her !!!

Money has ALWAYS been a factor in politics . It is comical that you think it began with Trump.

I don't think that, but he is the worse I have ever seen. Probably the worst you have seen too!


Yeah. There was certainly no dirty money in the Clinton campaign. I mean, just ask Soros if you don't believe it. If you dems want people to listen to your complaints, you might want to clean up your own house first. Otherwise...

Doesn't matter if you listen or not, since we both talk past each other, but the point is we have an election every two years and the tribe that makes it count wins. Maybe you weren't here for all the crying and whining and complaining during the Obama and Bush years so this is no different, so enjoy the circus while it lasts, because things have been known to change.

Politics is politics... money is money... and they make for a toxic brew no matter who the chef is. Always have and always will until THAT changes. Hold your nose, but don't hold your breath.

Politics is politics... money is money... and they make for a toxic brew no matter who the chef is. Always have and always will until THAT changes. Hold your nose, but don't hold your breath.

I agree with what you are saying concerning politics and money. I think our point of disagreement comes in the idea that you seem to think you could vote for Clinton without holding your nose. Just not true.

I'm saying money is an essential part of politics .If it is not available the the message does not get out . If there is no private money then the government decides which message gets funded . Let's say Trump became the tyrant you believe he is . Then how would your message get out without private anonymous funding ?

I'm saying money is an essential part of politics .If it is not available the the message does not get out . If there is no private money then the government decides which message gets funded . Let's say Trump became the tyrant you believe he is . Then how would your message get out without private anonymous funding ?

Really good point. Like many things in life, we are saying the good outweighs the potential bad. Worst scenario would be for the government to get involved in it.

I agree with what you are saying concerning politics and money. I think our point of disagreement comes in the idea that you seem to think you could vote for Clinton without holding your nose. Just not true.

<CHUCLE> The repub decades long smear campaign while a lot of hollering yielded no EVIDENCE that stood the court of law or public opinion except among repubs, which included a sizable right wing loonies with conspiracy theories. Therefore no need to hold my nose, and by your own standards you have NO EVIDENCE that I did.

If you care to go back and read what I wrote at the time in 2016, I used the same arguments against the dufus as I did with Bush43, too many bankruptcies and really bad business decisions, as well as a total lack of foreign policy experience even though Bush put together a much more competent team than the dufus did.

So NO I didn't have to hold my nose at all voting for Clinton, as a vote for the dufus was a non-starter for me, given his words, behavior, and policies. To some voting 3rd party is a viable option but for me was just as bad as casting a vote for the dufus. JL I ain't mad YOU held your nose for your candidate, but don't put that on me. However I give you much credit for your admission and reasons and respect your decision even if I don't agree with them at all.

I'm saying money is an essential part of politics .If it is not available the the message does not get out . If there is no private money then the government decides which message gets funded . Let's say Trump became the tyrant you believe he is . Then how would your message get out without private anonymous funding ?

Money makes the world go 'round for sure, but it's humans that manipulate it's purpose and function. My argument against capitalism always has been in the lack of circulation caused by the hoarding by those with the most of it. Evidence 1 is the setting of values of the humans with less. Example, a wall street trader or ceo is worth more than a school of teachers, a city of cops and fire fighters, and can garner more capital than any ordinary person.

While I am in no way advocating public funding for pols to get their message out during silly season, I disagree with the notion of DARK secret money in elections as well. Maybe there is a middle ground that can be achieved, but surely the infusion of even more money into the process is not the answer.

Unbridled capitalism is a curse not a cure in my humble opinion, and hiding behind anonymity is a facilitator of that curse. Just as we are experiencing the weaponization of the internet, we cannot discount the get the message out aspect we are also experiencing at levels previously unimaginable. Okay I have no instant good solution so we keep debating. 8D

Maybe the agenda is wrong, as the use of money for power, wealth, and control may not be the best idea. Building, uniting, and improving CIRCULATION would be more constructive.

Evidence 1 is the setting of values of the humans with less. Example, a wall street trader or ceo is worth more than a school of teachers..

That's because for every one person with the skill and determination to be a CEO, which is a wildly demanding job, there are a thousand people who can be teachers, and I say that having spent most of my adult life as a teacher/principal. It's a simple law of supply and demand, with a high demand for successful CEOs but a relatively low supply. It also explains why we pay NFL football quarterbacks so much. There is a high demand but a very limited supply of great quarterbacks, so the really good ones can name their price even though what they do is essentially useless. There are millions of people who can sell popcorn at the stadium, so they get paid much less.

I think your argument against capitalism is flawed for this reason. Rich people do not hoard their money. Wealthy people do not take their money and hide it in a hole in the back yard. They invest their money which allows the development of new businesses and the employment of the rest of us. One of the truly great things about our country is that the opportunity to become wealthy is out there for practically all of us IF we are willing to pay the price to get there. Personally, I don't want to work 70 or 80 hours a week, so I think I'll pass on it.

Oh my ! We have to do some deprogramming from Tal's higher education . A good start would be to read '
Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You about Economics ' by John Tamney ,editor of 'Real Clear Markets '.


Imposing limits on spending money or organizing make the 1st amendment useless to most Americans .If spending money to express a viewpoint is not protected, then the most impact you can have with free speech is to stand on a chair in a crowded area and start shouting.



If we do agree that individuals have the right to speak freely and spend money to spread their ideas, then why wouldn’t that same right apply to two or more people pooling their resources to do the same thing? Americans don’t sacrifice their liberties when they join together. Limits allow government bureaucrats the final word on your free speech .



Absent the ability to spend money and pool resources, the only ones who could express their views to large numbers of people would be those who don’t need to pay for a public platform,or those rich enough to buy a media company ie incumbents and celebrities. You think your regulations are protecting the little folk ,but they are not. I learned a long time ago that most of the regulations are designed to protect the interests of the empowered . But somehow election finance laws are different ? Come on man!

Didn't I just make that point that throwing more private money in the game skews the whole process? Particularly DARK money? You can defend it all you want and holler about the rules but if you cannot track that DARK money, then how do you even know its from a legit source? The same applies to both major parties, not just the conservatives who are afraid of a boycott. Can't repubs boycott our donors as well?

Of course you can, so lets dismiss totally this dark money argument altogether and just obey the law. Sure corporations are people too! >SNICKER< So come clean and take your consequences like the rest of us.

What is "dark money"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money



In the
politics of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States)
,
dark money is funds given to nonprofit organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization)—and include 501(c)(4) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(4))(social welfare) 501(c)(5) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(5))(unions) and 501(c)(6) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(6))(trade association) groups—that can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals and unions. They can spend funds to influence elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election), but are not required to disclose their donors. [3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money#cite_note-CRP-PN-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money#cite_note-Maguire-4)

"but not required to disclose their donors" is the important part in my estimation but you should read the whole article for a better perspective.

OK. I had never heard the term before. Good luck with telling unions that they cannot spend money on elections.

Seeing as Mueller investigation has fallen on hard times this would be the ideal reassignment, investigate dark money and interference in elections

Good luck with telling unions that they cannot spend money on elections. Exactly ,they never cry foul when their organizations do it . They scream from a mountaintop about Koch and Russians while ignoring years of Soros interfering in the American political process for years now.

OK. I had never heard the term before. Good luck with telling unions that they cannot spend money on elections.

Union WORKERS can opt out of paying dues and still retain union protections, but the real issue is the corporations without or with unions being able to contribute to candidate and causes without disclosing those amounts, or ordering workers to participate in those campaigns whether they want to or not.



Exactly ,they never cry foul when their organizations do it . They scream from a mountaintop about Koch and Russians while ignoring years of Soros interfering in the American political process for years now.

We like Soros, and hate the Koch's and Russians... DUH!

Union WORKERS can opt out of paying dues and still retain union protections, but the real issue is the corporations without or with unions being able to contribute to candidate and causes without disclosing those amounts, or ordering workers to participate in those campaigns whether they want to or not.

How convenient to allow the democrat supporting unions to continue to spend millions of dollars to support politicians.

I have never heard of businesses being able to order their employees to support politicians. Where are you getting that from?

Okay, Hope this helps.

https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/12/citizens-united-at-work/

And some examples and anecdotes,

Employer Political Coercion: A Growing Threat (http://prospect.org/article/employer-political-coercion-growing-threat)

And a bit of background,

The Rise of Corporations — Global Issues (http://www.globalissues.org/article/234/the-rise-of-corporations)

There is a lot of literature and all I gave you here was just an outline. The last link has many related articles linked at the bottom of the page... "Where Next?"



The Rise of Corporations
Corporations and Human Rights (http://www.globalissues.org/article/51/corporations-and-human-rights)
Tax Avoidance and Tax Havens; Undermining Democracy (http://www.globalissues.org/article/54/tax-avoidance-and-havens-undermining-democracy)
Pharmaceutical Corporations and Medical Research (http://www.globalissues.org/article/52/pharmaceutical-corporations-and-medical-research)
Pharmaceutical Corporations and AIDS (http://www.globalissues.org/article/53/pharmaceutical-corporations-and-aids)
Corporations and the Environment (http://www.globalissues.org/article/55/corporations-and-the-environment)
Corporate Social Responsibility (http://www.globalissues.org/article/723/corporate-social-responsibility)
Corporate Influence on Children (http://www.globalissues.org/article/56/corporate-influence-on-children)
Corporations and Worker’s Rights (http://www.globalissues.org/article/57/corporations-and-workers-rights)
Influence at the World Trade Organization (http://www.globalissues.org/article/58/influence-at-the-wto)