General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPerhaps the Citizens United decision wasn't quite such a big deal as some predicted?
At $64.8 million, Jeb Bush's Super PAC spending has absolutely blown away those of the other candidates. And guess whose Super PAC has spent the second most? Scott Walker. It seems that "money buys elections" and "our democracy is up for sale to the highest bidder" are oversimplifications, to say the least.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html
randys1
(16,286 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)I did not know that.
--imm
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)It's purpose is to influence elections. You say it doesn't. Or does it?
--imm
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Or nobody would spend any money on campaigning.
My objection is to claims such as "our democracy is for sale to the highest bidder", which it obviously is not.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)What is there to stop the highest bidder?
--imm
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)cycle?
It does appear to be for sale to the highest bidder, just as it was in 2012. That doesn't mean, though, that the highest bidder will win the election. What it does mean, is that they will be able to affect a lot of election locally and at the state level.
Igel
(35,356 posts)the response is that money buys elections.
Which is apparently intended to mean "big money essentially buys the outcome of any election it's involved in." The electorate has no will, the barrage of adverts necessarily corrupts the process and dictates the vote.
But there have been a lot of elections where the message pushed by big money hasn't resonated. The biggest spender loses by a wide margin. Then you hear crickets because it doesn't confirm the bias.
Election campaigns are like any other kind of campaign. It's hard to convince people that don't like deep-fat fried broccoli-flavored whale blubber to run out and buy it en masse.
It works yet another way: When the "correct" candidate gets the money advantage, then it's a good thing that money buys the election. Unless they lose, then, well, <chirp, chirp, chirp>.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Yes, elections are the result of complex interactions, much of which defies prediction. It would be wrong to suggest that there is not a monetary influence in the flow. I don't see how money makes things better.
--imm
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)it was only a matter of time before the Hillary camp would start to defend Citizens United?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)including the Citizens United decision. Which I know puts me in the minority of DUers.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)(and I know this hits a nerve), the ACLU has become very much of an establishment organization.
Being both a long-time ACLU member and a civil rights attorney, I've watched the organization go from a defender of the powerless to a group more focused on high-minded principles. Such principles are great in an otherwise just society, but in a society fraught with economic, racial, etc. disparity, they are nothing more than tools of oppression. Citizens United is a perfect example.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Never mind the fact that states have been destroyed by the Citizens United ruling, we should just ignore that and pretend cleverness and intelligence are the same thing. Obviously republicans cannot tell the difference.
It's the third way!
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)They defended the right of the Klan to march, for example. Many people hate it when the ACLU defends the civil rights of someone they dislike. Your sentiments are not at all uncommon.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)And there's the rub . . . yes, Citizens United is typical unprincipled RW intellectual fraud, BUT the worse decision was Buckley v. Valeo.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)to fund a hopeless, bigoted-message campaign.
Rex
(65,616 posts)They just cannot buy the federal election...who knew?
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Its goal is to turn CA into a Republican stronghold.
That idea has no chance of ever becoming a reality. But that doesn't stop that group from being well funded by conservatives, who will fund anything that is anti-liberal, even if it's a total pipe dream.
Rex
(65,616 posts)liberalsarescum etc.. and probably be a millionaire by the end of the week. Ugh. I hope Cali never goes back to Reaganites...they are still the worst group around. Okay, I kid they are nothing compared to the crazy tea idiots with endless pockets and coffers.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)nt
Trajan
(19,089 posts)For whatever reason, overwhelming financial resources did not help well financed candidates ..
That doesn't mean it won't have an outsized impact in a future campaign ...
Throwing out the baby with the bath water ... Not wise
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Small donors, many of whom have to count their pennies before they decide to see a doctor, are the only reason Bernie can be where he is.
Public campaign finance is the only fair solution to this problem.
madokie
(51,076 posts)JudyM
(29,274 posts)in fact elected. Whoever pours money into the winning candidate's election is richly rewarded with influence over whatever laws or policies s/he is interested in.
Certainly winning is required to get anything back on your dollar, but the measurement that matters is the record of actions that are then taken on your behalf by the winning candidate once in office.
the OP doesn't seem to understand Amer8ican politics, or the ramifications of big money.
JudyM
(29,274 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Same people that love Citizens United, love and defend the TPP...nobody is fooled by their not so clever tactics.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)but still was elected governor of California.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)And the one time the argument breaks in your favor is supposed to nullify everything that happened before??
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)but more importantly, they preferred a Republican Senate and House.
And that is what they got.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)when people look at the numbers and realize that there is not much correlation between how much a candidate spends and whether he or she wins.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)can I have some?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)but OK, here...
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Whether the person to win has the most money spent or not is not the issue. It's whether they are beholden, once elected, to whoever spent the money that was spent to get them elected.
Buying a politician is buying a politician, whether the winner was the highest bid upon or not.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)What leverage does the supporter have if the politician does not bend to their wishes when in office?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)What leverage does the supporter have if the politician does not bend to their wishes when in office?
There's this thing called "the next election" and whether said person will be spending that money with the same candidate or not. And a matter of any promises that may have been made to get that money *this* election.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)to not see the vast influence money is having and the laws passed.
Oneironaut
(5,524 posts)It doesn't matter how much money you spend. You can't get past that douchey bro barrier.
ornotna
(10,807 posts)Bit premature to make that claim don't you think?
DFW
(54,436 posts)And it sure as hell doesn't make you a better candidate.
It's the "All the King's Horses" syndrome. Had Jeb been able to connect with the voters, his money would have given him a devastating advantage. However, if you're competing for votes among a voting bloc whose majority prefers Cruz, Trump or Rubio, then the most your money is going to do is get your mug on Iowa TV so often that people will be throwing tomatoes at their screens.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)JPnoodleman
(454 posts)The ability of money to control the hubs of communication is greatly diminished by the internet being infinitely large and free. People can organize movements and communicate without a filter and thus the elite ability to build and maintain whats known as the overtone window is weakened.
Lithos
(26,404 posts)It's a matter of leverage
It's really amounts to a cost per vote... Some people (Jeb) require more $$$ to get a vote than others...
You really need to look at Marketing 101 - there is a term called Customer Acquisition cost. Some products cost more to "buy" a new consumer than others. The paradigm holds to politics.
L-