• 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

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

should have spent it on raises for workers, third world vaccination campaigns, and kickass classic cars.

1968_Chrysler_Imperial_Crown_4_Door_Hardtop_For_Sale_Rear_1 (1).jpg
 
Yep, only public unions should be able to do that. ;)

Pure delfection
Why up till about 10 -15 years ago or so a Senator could retire and all funds raised, well they were able to keep that money for their own use. Nope- nothing here folks. All you have to do is turn your head to the side and pretend I did not see it, so I knew nothing.
 
Buying influence bother you?

I don't think $900 million in an election buys you as much influence as a private jet ride to a Cayman Islands retreat or time in the owner's private box at the Super Bowl. But hey, that's just me.
 
I don't think $900 million in an election buys you as much influence as a private jet ride to a Cayman Islands retreat or time in the owner's private box at the Super Bowl. But hey, that's just me.
I truly hope you're being satirical.
 
I truly hope you're being satirical.

Not at all. I've actually seen how politicians get bought and it isn't from big money public campaign action. You'd be surprise how cheaply any politician so inclined can be had.
 
Not at all. I've actually seen how politicians get bought and it isn't from big money public campaign action. You'd be surprise how cheaply any politician so inclined can be had.
You've seen wrong then. 900 million would have financed over 80 percent of the winning Presidential campaign in 2012. The idea that a plane ride or other "perks" buys more influence than that is wildly naive to put it kindly.
 
Now continue believing that. Nope- all for the good of the country.
Perhaps Google States Attorney General and donations from corps. Eye opener.

That's okay. I don't need to. It doesn't bother me how other people spend their money.
 
When do we get to hear about Dem donors like Soros and what they plan to spend? This is getting exciting!
You won't find me denying the existence of big money Dem doners, not to mention the Union dominance. I'm not even of the opinion that big money is the great evil that many do, but the idea that a 9 figure check doesn't buy you more input into legislative priorities than the average joe is just absurd.
 
Why does money from the left get a pass but Koch money gets scrutiny?
 
You've seen wrong then. 900 million would have financed over 80 percent of the winning Presidential campaign in 2012. The idea that a plane ride or other "perks" buys more influence than that is wildly naive to put it kindly.

Sorry, but reality trumps fantasy every time. Take a look at some politicians who've been "bought" over the years and tell me if you find any that were as a result of campaign funding. What you're much more likely to find is the Representative Jefferson kind with $10,000 in their freezer.
 
Kochs Plan to Waste $900 Million on 2016 Campaign.

Indications are that they have't influenced the electorate very much, so far as presidential races go.
Citizens United has not proven to be the boogie man once feared.
 
If they're spending the money legally, more power to them. People should be happy that an individual is shoveling almost a $billion into the economy, employing scads of Americans in the process, and not squirreling it away in some offshore account or employing peons in India to answer phones.

That said, Canada is going to go through a federal election this year and by comparison, our election law limits 3rd party spending to $200,000 and we can't stand the number of ads we get subjected to. I can't imagine the pain suffered by Americans in this regard. And I don't for a minute think the amount of money matters so much as the impact of the message.

Least we know why the Left really dislikes them. ;)
 
Why does money from the left get a pass but Koch money gets scrutiny?
It doesn't, at least not from the right. Unions are constantly bemoaned, as is Soros and the like. It's just standard politics rather than some vast conspiracy against the right.
 
You've seen wrong then. 900 million would have financed over 80 percent of the winning Presidential campaign in 2012. The idea that a plane ride or other "perks" buys more influence than that is wildly naive to put it kindly.

unfortunately, CJ is right about this
our elected political prostitutes are also cheap prostitutes
reminds me of the newhart show with larry and his brothers: darryl and darryl. they would do anything for a dollar. well, so will too many of our elected representatives
 
How much is it worth to you to vote Republican?

I'm not worried about me....but advertising is very influential with a great number of the electorate. It is a known fact that money can sway an election which is why the "Citizen's United" case was such a fiasco. As a result, our Whitehouse faces the real danger of being bought by the highest bidder. We need real campaign reform and ideally we would have publically financed campaigns and get private money out. Then...it would be about the candidates and the issues and less about a 60 second sound bite.
 
:lamo



More like inconvenient truth.



Beat me to it.

Okay, you laughed. Please show me some evidence of the Koch brothers forcing politicians to do something against their will or strictly because the Koch brothers required/demanded/bought it. I'm not aware of it.
 
I'm not worried about me....but advertising is very influential with a great number of the electorate. It is a known fact that money can sway an election which is why the "Citizen's United" case was such a fiasco. As a result, our Whitehouse faces the real danger of being bought by the highest bidder. We need real campaign reform and ideally we would have publically financed campaigns and get private money out. Then...it would be about the candidates and the issues and less about a 60 second sound bite.

Seems like it would be easier to get the Congress to shrink the powers of the Presidency instead of abdicating to the POTUS the way it was supposed to be done all along, and who sits in the WH wouldn't matter as much, certainly not worth $2B of spending.
 
Seems like it would be easier to get the Congress to shrink the powers of the Presidency instead of abdicating to the POTUS the way it was supposed to be done all along, and who sits in the WH wouldn't matter as much, certainly not worth $2B of spending.

Like what, for example?
 
I'm not worried about me....but advertising is very influential with a great number of the electorate. It is a known fact that money can sway an election which is why the "Citizen's United" case was such a fiasco. As a result, our Whitehouse faces the real danger of being bought by the highest bidder. We need real campaign reform and ideally we would have publically financed campaigns and get private money out. Then...it would be about the candidates and the issues and less about a 60 second sound bite.

If course not. It's always "my integrity is unimpeachable but everyone else is weak willed".:roll:

Why is it that liberals always think they can do no wrong but everyone else is a **** up?
 
Back
Top Bottom