General Discussion

kpete

(71,996 posts) Thu Jun 7, 2012, 11:06 AM Jun 2012

When we talk about "buying" elections, we only talk about the "buyers." Who's doing the selling?

When we talk about "buying" elections, we only talk about the "buyers." Who's doing the selling?

it's abundantly clear that seats for our elected officials are being bought... this isn't news... it's been happening for a long time but never more visibly than in this week's wisconsin recall election... what often gets left out in the buying and selling discussion is where all that money is going... yes, it's easy enough to say it's being spent on political advertising... that's a no-brainer... but just as we're coming to find out just exactly who is doing the "buying," we need to know just exactly who all that money is going to... besides the source, it would be very useful to know how much media outlets and advertising firms are making and the details of the majority ownership - by name - of those outlets and firms... my hunch, which is also undoubtedly a no-brainer - is that we would see a maze of interlocking interests, back-scratching and mutual hand-washing.....the cardinal rule, "follow the money," is anathema to our super-rich elites and their bought-and-paid-for elected puppets... god forbid we should shine a light on their shell game...

..........

much more plus links:
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2012/06/when-we-talk-about-buying-elections-we.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AndYesIDoTakeItPersonally+%28And%2C+yes%2C+I+DO+take+it+personally%29

another snippet:
For decades, broadcasters have kept the public in the dark about their massive election-year windfalls.

Those that own news outlets prefer silence on this issue. (See Disney, which owns eight ABC stations reaching 24 percent of the U.S. population, CBS Corp., which owns and operates 28 stations, Comcast, which provides news programming to more than 200 NBC affiliates, and News Corp., which owns and operates 27 local affiliates) Covering this story exposes their conflict of interest, in which profit-taking trumps the news media’s duty to educate viewers about the forces behind modern-day elections.
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/reform-age-corporate-lawyers/

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When we talk about "buying" elections, we only talk about the "buyers." Who's doing the selling? (Original Post) kpete Jun 2012 OP

There's no point in trying to "follow the money" Blue_Tires Jun 2012 #1

Without a doubt the corporate media is compromised, that inbred monopoly is Uncle Joe Jun 2012 #2

I keep suggesting that instead of campaigns using donations to pay for ads Tumbulu Jun 2012 #3

Money laundering 101: Placement ALWAYS comes before layering. Anti-money laundering models shcrane71 Jun 2012 #4

The people you mention aren't the sellers because they don't have a public office to sell. Jim Lane Jun 2012 #5

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)

1. There's no point in trying to "follow the money"

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 11:12 AM

Jun 2012

The higher-ups are way too good at hiding it in secret slush accounts, shell companies, phony foundations, gifts to friends and real, legit business interests...It'll take an army of forensic accountants to even track down one account, while the perp just switches to another...So you end up like a dog chasing its own tail...

The real solution is to take money out of politics altogether...

Uncle Joe

(58,365 posts)

2. Without a doubt the corporate media is compromised, that inbred monopoly is

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 11:30 AM

Jun 2012

conflict of interest-ridden to the tenth power.

The vast majority of the corporate media has written off the American People in favor of corporate supremacy.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

Tumbulu

(6,290 posts)

3. I keep suggesting that instead of campaigns using donations to pay for ads

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 12:09 PM

Jun 2012

that they take the money and buy groceries for people- totally at random, or pay for dental exams, or vet visits, or fund spay/neutering. DO THINGS FOR REAL PEOPLE with the money. Completely forget the airwaves absolutely entirely. Just pay for things that people need. Look at what money these campaigns raise- use it to help people survive/ hey and how about thrive?

I am personally planning on doing this this year. I will buy someone a tank of gas and say "paid for by my commitment to Democratic Candidates- please please remember to go vote".

I maintain that if we stop feeding the beast of the corporate news/advertising agency stranglehold and fund doctors, dentists, vets, pay for gas, pay for groceries, give money to the school library, etc- be creative - that we will see the change that we need. Person to person directly. Forget about all these elaborate organizations that pay for adds on TV. Who watches TV anymore anyway?

My 2 Cents

shcrane71

(1,721 posts)

4. Money laundering 101: Placement ALWAYS comes before layering. Anti-money laundering models

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 03:16 PM

Jun 2012

will work for finding which outlets are getting the funds in the first place. We may not be able to find the kick-backs (those funds are already layered), but it's a start.

Great thread Kpete! Thank You!

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

5. The people you mention aren't the sellers because they don't have a public office to sell.

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2012, 07:32 PM

Jun 2012

Corporate interests that produce and air the TV ads are just the middlemen. They help the people with money reach the people who have what they want -- and that latter group is the voters.

If voters would stop being influenced by this crap, then we wouldn't have a problem.

Of course, that's not going to happen, so we do have a problem, so we have to get the money out of politics. You're also right to point out that the middlemen have an entrenched economic interest in blocking any reform. That's a practical obstacle that we have to take into account.

It's just that I can't consider this topic without experiencing some annoyance at the electorate for making the whole mess possible in the first place.

Reply to this discussion