[tomder55]

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 .

[Athos]

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.

[talaniman]

"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?

[tomder55]

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 .

[talaniman]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[tomder55]

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 ?

[talaniman]

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

[tomder55]

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 ) .

[paraclete]

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

[talaniman]

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.

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.



Thanks Tom. You got what you wanted.

[tomder55]

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

[jlisenbe]

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...

[tomder55]

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 !!!

[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[tomder55]

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 ?

[jlisenbe]

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.

[talaniman]

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.