• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

JasperL said:
LOL, it's not me being intentionally obtuse. If campaign donations don't "buy" anything, then why do special interests spend (in the case of Wall Street and healthcare) $billions in the system? Each spent more than $6 billion lobbying since 1998, and that's just part of the spending. They're not irrational, or stupid, and if that money doesn't accomplish anything, why bother? Shouldn't shareholders demand that GE do something more productive with it's money than spend $315 million since 1998 on lobbying? After all that money doesn't "buy" anything.



It's not a "feeling of participation" they're obtaining, it's results. The companies and industries know it, you know it. And you ignore my comments, then address straw man like that above, so there's really no point to this debate. You're apparently determined to miss the point.
Click to expand...

Arguing that campaign donations must buy favors because they wouldn't be made if they don't buy favors is circular logic.

Why don't you tell me what the Kochs bought with all their donations in 2012? Be specific about the favors they purchased with the millions they spent.
 
JANFU said:
And they do this due to their love for their country. Thoughts are?

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/u...lumn-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch plans to spend close to $900 million on the 2016 campaign, an unparalelled effort by outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history.

The goal, revealed Monday at the Kochs’ annual winter donor retreat near Palm Springs, Calif., would effectively allow their political organization to operate at the same financial scale as the Democratic and Republican parties. In the last presidential election, the Republican National Committee and the party’s two congressional campaign committees spent a total of $657 million.
Click to expand...


It's no coincidence that Romney made his announcement just days after the Koch brothers revealed they are buying the White House in 2016. He doesn't have that kind of money. Several homes and an elevator for his car in La Jolla, yes. That kind of money, no.
 
JasperL said:
LOL, it's not me being intentionally obtuse. If campaign donations don't "buy" anything, then why do special interests spend (in the case of Wall Street and healthcare) $billions in the system? Each spent more than $6 billion lobbying since 1998, and that's just part of the spending. They're not irrational, or stupid, and if that money doesn't accomplish anything, why bother? Shouldn't shareholders demand that GE do something more productive with its money than spend $315 million since 1998 on lobbying? After all that money doesn't "buy" anything...:roll:



It's not a "feeling of participation" they're obtaining, it's results. The companies and industries know it, you know it. And you ignore my comments, then address straw man like that above, so there's really no point to this debate. You're apparently determined to miss the point.
Click to expand...

Why aren't you holding politicians accountable for accepting campaign contributions to buy influence? You don't seem to understand that it is freedom to spend your money the way you see fit on trial here. There is nothing illegal about spending your own money on a political campaign but this is another freedom you don't have a problem eliminating. There isn't a lobbyist out there that casts a vote on any laws made by Congress so your outrage is misguided.
 
PureVanilla said:
It's no coincidence that Romney made his announcement just days after the Koch brothers revealed they are buying the White House in 2016. He doesn't have that kind of money. Several homes and an elevator for his car in La Jolla, yes. That kind of money, no.
Click to expand...

Why would any qualified candidate go through the anal exam liberals will do on a Republican candidate and put their family through it after going through it before? Anal exams only matter with Republicans but were ignored when Obama ran. How anyone could vote for Obama over Romney just goes to show the "stupidity of the American electorate."
 
jonny5 said:
In a capitalist system, where people have a right to accumulate capital, whats excessive? There should be no such thing.
Click to expand...
Henrin said:
What amount of wealth is excessive?
Click to expand...
I'm not going to throw out a dollar amount, but in general, if we're to accept that "all men are created equal," then there shouldn't be men who have millions of times more influence than others, at least without being vetted by the election process, which includes checks and balances.
 
PureVanilla said:
It's no coincidence that Romney made his announcement just days after the Koch brothers revealed they are buying the White House in 2016. He doesn't have that kind of money. Several homes and an elevator for his car in La Jolla, yes. That kind of money, no.
Click to expand...

That's nice except...

Romney told supporters on Friday morning that he will not make a third attempt at the presidency, according to the Washington Post. UPDATED: Mitt Passes On Third Chance at Losing
Click to expand...
 
Papa bull said:
That's nice except...
Click to expand...


Who was he supposed to tell? His detractors? I don't think Romney, or any politician, is going to say, "I'm announcing my withdrawal from presidential race because I can't outspend the Koch brothers"? Even though that is the truth.

If it's the timeline you are referring to, the Koch brothers press release of their $889,000,000 war chest was announced several days before Romney bowed out.
 
PureVanilla said:
Who was he supposed to tell? His detractors? I don't think Romney, or any politician, is going to say, "I'm announcing my withdrawal from presidential race because I can't outspend the Koch brothers"? Even though that is the truth.

If it's the timeline you are referring to, the Koch brothers press release of their $889,000,000 war chest was announced several days before Romney bowed out.
Click to expand...
but it is a bit of a stretch to say that Romney bowed out because of the Koch brothers. Why would he have had a part of that campaign chest for his own run?

Personally, I was surprised that he even considered running after having promised his wife he would not put her through another campaign.

Now, the Koch brothers are astute capitalists. Were they not, they wouldn't be sitting on a fortune with the capability of spending nearly a billion dollars to get their way politically. Astute capitalists, the ones who are able to amass huge fortunes, aren't going to spend all that money without a good chance for a return on investment. If that's not buying political influence, I don't know what is.

It's way past time for meaningful campaign finance reform. Let the billionaires invest elsewhere besides purchasing elections.
 
Unrepresented said:
I'm not going to throw out a dollar amount, but in general, if we're to accept that "all men are created equal," then there shouldn't be men who have millions of times more influence than others, at least without being vetted by the election process, which includes checks and balances.
Click to expand...


Did you ever learn about equal opportunity vs equal outcome? You think this country was built on equal outcome? Do you honestly not understand incentives?
 
Unrepresented said:
I'm not going to throw out a dollar amount, but in general, if we're to accept that "all men are created equal," then there shouldn't be men who have millions of times more influence than others, at least without being vetted by the election process, which includes checks and balances.
Click to expand...

That just means laws should treat people as if they are equal. As in there should not be a law which says you have more free speech because you are rich. But in the absence of the law, everyone IS equal to pursue happiness, which means no limits on the capital they accumulate.
 
Freedom of speech takes a plethora of forms.

Flag burning

Handing out pamphlets

Writing and distributing books.

Broadcasting your ideas like Rush Limbaugh or Rachel maddow.

Donating to campaigns. (Money talks, right?).

You can do your own speaking or pY someone to speak in your behalf.
 
Papa bull said:
Arguing that campaign donations must buy favors because they wouldn't be made if they don't buy favors is circular logic.
Click to expand...

You've already said you agreed with me so I'm not sure what your point actually is - maybe you're hanging your hat on "buy favors."

Why don't you tell me what the Kochs bought with all their donations in 2012? Be specific about the favors they purchased with the millions they spent.
Click to expand...

You've got a computer with search functions - Koch backed candidates won all over the country, especially in state races, in the past several cycles. I've mentioned some of these, you ignored them, then ask the same question again. It's not worth the effort.
 
JasperL said:
You've already said you agreed with me so I'm not sure what your point actually is - maybe you're hanging your hat on "buy favors."

You've got a computer with search functions - Koch backed candidates won all over the country, especially in state races, in the past several cycles. I've mentioned some of these, you ignored them, then ask the same question again. It's not worth the effort.
Click to expand...

You're right. It's not worth the effort. In 2012 the Kochs spent many millions. The result? Another 4 years of Obama and democrat control of the senate. I don't blame you for not wanting to put up the "ROI" figures that the Kochs got for their contributions. There isn't any "return on investment" because the donations aren't an "investment". They're "donations". Maybe you're hanging your hat on an inability to distinguish the difference.
 
Dittohead not! said:
but it is a bit of a stretch to say that Romney bowed out because of the Koch brothers. Why would he have had a part of that campaign chest for his own run?

Personally, I was surprised that he even considered running after having promised his wife he would not put her through another campaign.

Now, the Koch brothers are astute capitalists. Were they not, they wouldn't be sitting on a fortune with the capability of spending nearly a billion dollars to get their way politically. Astute capitalists, the ones who are able to amass huge fortunes, aren't going to spend all that money without a good chance for a return on investment. If that's not buying political influence, I don't know what is.

It's way past time for meaningful campaign finance reform. Let the billionaires invest elsewhere besides purchasing elections.
Click to expand...

Romney is too liberal for the Kochs. He would never see any of those funds, maybe token taxi money.
The Kochs are going to invest that money in Tea Party/far right evangelical candidates, as they did in the mid-terms. And if successful, they will be running America with the sock puppet of their choice in the White House.
 
PureVanilla said:
Romney is too liberal for the Kochs. He would never see any of those funds, maybe token taxi money.
The Kochs are going to invest that money in Tea Party/far right evangelical candidates, as they did in the mid-terms. And if successful, they will be running America with the sock puppet of their choice in the White House.
Click to expand...

There you have it. If a republican president wins it will be because the Koch brothers bought a sock puppet.

And if a democrat wins then... well, nevermind. Let's talk about something else if that happens.
 
Papa bull said:
You're right. It's not worth the effort. In 2012 the Kochs spent many millions. The result? Another 4 years of Obama and democrat control of the senate. I don't blame you for not wanting to put up the "ROI" figures that the Kochs got for their contributions. There isn't any "return on investment" because the donations aren't an "investment". They're "donations". Maybe you're hanging your hat on an inability to distinguish the difference.
Click to expand...

They did, but the money was funded into non-profit groups for influencing the 2014 mid-terms for Congressional seats to win back the House. And we know how that turned out. They donated only $4.9M to presidential PACs.

The players in the Koch-backed $400 million political donor network
The players in the Koch-backed $400 million political donor network - The Washington Post
 
PureVanilla said:
They did, but the money was funded into non-profit groups for influencing the 2014 mid-terms for Congressional seats to win back the House. And we know how that turned out. They donated only $4.9M to presidential PACs.

The players in the Koch-backed $400 million political donor network
The players in the Koch-backed $400 million political donor network - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

Seems like the only ones truly swayed by money and advertising are liberals. Liberal groups like Soros couldn't spend enough to get me to vote for a Democrat today, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary so apparently that money wouldn't be well spent on my. Take that money to the liberal base and Gruber nailed it
 
Conservative said:
Did you ever learn about equal opportunity vs equal outcome? You think this country was built on equal outcome? Do you honestly not understand incentives?
Click to expand...
I understand incentives.

Incentives come in a variety of forms. They also don't have to be winner takes all form to be effective.

My incentive is to increase equality because I like being equal, and I like those around me to be more equal.
 
jonny5 said:
That just means laws should treat people as if they are equal. As in there should not be a law which says you have more free speech because you are rich. But in the absence of the law, everyone IS equal to pursue happiness, which means no limits on the capital they accumulate.
Click to expand...

You do have more speech if you're rich. The article describes how a few people will be spending a billion dollars next year speaking. I, nor most people, don't have that much speech.
 
Papa bull said:
You're right. It's not worth the effort. In 2012 the Kochs spent many millions. The result? Another 4 years of Obama and democrat control of the senate. I don't blame you for not wanting to put up the "ROI" figures that the Kochs got for their contributions. There isn't any "return on investment" because the donations aren't an "investment". They're "donations". Maybe you're hanging your hat on an inability to distinguish the difference.
Click to expand...

Interesting - I mention the great success they had at the state level, you ignore that, and concentrate on the POTUS and Senate in one election cycle, ignoring 2010 when the House flipped, 2014 when the Senate flipped, and the many cases of state legislatures flipping or getting to super majority..... It's how this discussion is going.

And the strawman you've created by picking 2012 is that the spending has to always get the intended result. The problem with big donors having an outsized influence is races become games between dueling billionaires. Koch versus Soros, or AFP versus the Hospital Association. Or maybe it's Boeing versus GE, with both entities spending vast sums to 1) maintain a $trillion defense budget, and 2) fighting for their share of that pot.

If you're a rational person, and are thinking of a run for Senate, are you going to solicit 100,000 donations of $50, or go with your hat in hand to one of the king makers who can individually or as a tiny group drop $5 million into a race? Obviously the one who has the backing of millions from one source will have a large advantage, will tend to win more often than not, and that candidate will support the agenda of his or her donor base. I don't see it as a win for a functioning democracy if sometimes that's Charles Koch, and sometimes that's Wall Street or PhRMA.
 
Unrepresented said:
I understand incentives.

Incentives come in a variety of forms. They also don't have to be winner takes all form to be effective.

My incentive is to increase equality because I like being equal, and I like those around me to be more equal.
Click to expand...

Winner take all? So tell me how a rich person prevented you from becoming rich? Apparently you think the pie is frozen in size, is that correct? You are limited by your own ability and effort from getting into the same class as those evil rich people you want to punish. Only you are stopping yourself
 
Conservative said:
Seems like the only ones truly swayed by money and advertising are liberals. Liberal groups like Soros couldn't spend enough to get me to vote for a Democrat today, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary so apparently that money wouldn't be well spent on my. Take that money to the liberal base and Gruber nailed it
Click to expand...

Excuse me? What part of the Koch's $400M to win back the House did you miss? Go to the link and look at the network.

And poor Jonathan Gruber seems to have more crow feathers to pick out his mouth than he can manage.
 
JasperL said:
Interesting - I mention the great success they had at the state level, you ignore that, and concentrate on the POTUS and Senate in one election cycle, ignoring 2010 when the House flipped, 2014 when the Senate flipped, and the many cases of state legislatures flipping or getting to super majority..... It's how this discussion is going.
Click to expand...

It's pertinent. If the money "BUYS" you a candidate, then the Kochs, outspending everyone, then every candidate backed by the Koch brothers should win and they don't. The fact that republicans make more gains in some years than others is only something you can attribute to "Koch brothers influence" if you ignore everything else that affects elections.

And the strawman you've created by picking 2012 is that the spending has to always get the intended result.
Click to expand...

That's not a strawman. That just blows a gaping hole in your theory that campaign donations "buy" either politicians or votes. One man one vote is still the law of the land.

The problem with big donors having an outsized influence is races become games between dueling billionaires. Koch versus Soros, or AFP versus the Hospital Association. Or maybe it's Boeing versus GE, with both entities spending vast sums to 1) maintain a $trillion defense budget, and 2) fighting for their share of that pot.
Click to expand...

One man; one vote. It's the law of the land.

If you're a rational person, and are thinking of a run for Senate, are you going to solicit 100,000 donations of $50, or go with your hat in hand to one of the king makers who can individually or as a tiny group drop $5 million into a race? Obviously the one who has the backing of millions from one source will have a large advantage, will tend to win more often than not, and that candidate will support the agenda of his or her donor base. I don't see it as a win for a functioning democracy if sometimes that's Charles Koch, and sometimes that's Wall Street or PhRMA.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to respond to this any more. There's lots of debate and lots of emotions and lots of "gut feelings" but zero evidence that campaign contributions buy votes or political candidates. Are you going to vote for the people that the Koch brothers are supporting? I doubt it. Why can't the Koch brothers buy your vote?
 
Conservative said:
Winner take all? So tell me how a rich person prevented you from becoming rich? Apparently you think the pie is frozen in size, is that correct? You are limited by your own ability and effort from getting into the same class as those evil rich people you want to punish. Only you are stopping yourself
Click to expand...

That's easy. Ask that same question of people who were marketed heavily in the early '00s to buy a home only for it to go underwater or be foreclosed in 2008. Countrywide would give a mortgage to anyone with a pulse. Does the term NINJA loan conjure up any memories for you? Show me where the Wall Street bankers have been hurt in that deal. Hank Paulson (Secty of the Treasury under Bush, in case you forgot that, too) gave them $750,000,000,000 to ease their pain.
 
Kochs are spending the money because it is a good financial investment. They spend millions to make billions. Government for sale to the highest bidder.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom