• 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

Lutherf said:
Out of curiosity, if someone really liked "Brand X" peanut butter and decided to initiate a campaign to get more people to like the brand would you have a problem with that? What if they spent $900M to get you to change from "Brand Y" to their preferred brand?
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that this example properly addresses the concerns people have about money and its influence on politics?
 
disneydude said:
Like what, for example?
Click to expand...

Like No USA PATRIOT Act which basically gives the president the power to order an agency to insert a warrant-less chip in your anus during your colonoscopy, scoop you up, and drop you naked on the side of a river in Tanzania. For as much whining as the right does about their rights and the Constitution, a century of progressive laws can't hold a candle to what that thing did to the Constitution.
 
Lutherf said:
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?
Click to expand...


I don't think everyone else is a **** up....quite the contrary. I think you have hard core Republicans that are not going to be swayed by advertising....you have hard core democrats that are not going to be swayed by advertising. You have a good percentage on each side that will listen to the advertising and weigh it against other literature and will make a vote based on all of the information...and then you have a large percentage of people that watch a lot of TV and are easily swayed by a 60 second sound bite. Remember the Bush Prison ad against Dukakis? That ad pretty much swayed the entire election. Advertising is a powerful medium. I don't have a problem with it with commercial products, but our elections are too important for this.
 
Declan said:
Like No USA PATRIOT Act which basically gives the president the power to order an agency to insert a warrant-less chip in your anus during your colonoscopy, scoop you up, and drop you naked on the side of a river in Tanzania. For as much whining as the right does about their rights and the Constitution, a century of progressive laws can't hold a candle to what that thing did to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

No argument from me there.
 
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...

what is thier goal?
is it a republican president?

if so that money better be going towards some type of cloning/accelerated growth experiment to develop a new candidate that can actually win in 2016. Currently it looks VERY grim and Id say it may cost 3 times that to get it done. Also this is based on what i wain its based on the current dynamics of today's politics. I dont see the Reps wining in 2016 without some new candidate that hasnt been rumored yet or some huge factual scandal.

on topic i actually hate that this is allowed, other countries have limits and regulations and i wish we did too.
 
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...n-region&region=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...

Simple.

When you have a crappy product that no one likes, you have to spend a lot of extra money on marketing to sell i.
 
Declan said:
Like No USA PATRIOT Act which basically gives the president the power to order an agency to insert a warrant-less chip in your anus during your colonoscopy, scoop you up, and drop you naked on the side of a river in Tanzania. For as much whining as the right does about their rights and the Constitution, a century of progressive laws can't hold a candle to what that thing did to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Clearly you love the terrorists and hate 'murca.

At least, that's what people told me in 2001 when I raised my objections. I guess those folks convinced themselves that our wonderful, trustworthy government would never turn these powers on "good guys."

But now there's a Democrat in the white house so suddenly it's tyranny.
 
They are not spending 900 million in a advertisement campaign for their private company, they are putting up 900 billion to lobby and buy off politicians. If they wanted to put in a crony capitalist who would destroy the free market and give the Koch's a monopoly on the market and picking politicians, the current system actually has the potential to give them the power to do that.

Lutherf said:
Out of curiosity, if someone really liked "Brand X" peanut butter and decided to initiate a campaign to get more people to like the brand would you have a problem with that? What if they spent $900M to get you to change from "Brand Y" to their preferred brand?
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
Thoughts are if you have it to spend, go for it. It's their money to spend as they see fit. I can't imagine spending that kind of money on politics but then again I'm sure they wouldn't understand everything I spend my money on either.
Click to expand...

Did you know that typically the candidate that spends the most money usually wins? What if you felt your candidate was the best candidate but a ton special interest money was spent on his or her opponent, and he or she won because of it?
 
Spending billions on a political campaign is money wasted. It doesn't create long term jobs in the economy. The money goes largely into advertising and developing political ads that never get aired, hair, make up, political coaching, etc. It's a very pretentious, nearly two year spectacle of turd polishing.


CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Unrepresented said:
I think million dollar weddings and billion dollar campaign buying are both offensive, which is all the more reason to limit the degree to which individuals acquire such unreasonable amounts of money.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with anyone making big money as long as they don't encroach on my rights or freedoms.
 
tres borrachos said:
If I had back all the money I've spent on Powerball tickets through the years, I'd be able to buy a private island.
Click to expand...

We need to sit you down and show you how terrible the odds are.:mrgreen:
 
tres borrachos said:
If I had back all the money I've spent on Powerball tickets through the years, I'd be able to buy a private island.
Click to expand...

EnigmaO01 said:
We need to sit you down and show you how terrible the odds are.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I can help with that. You would be more likely to get struck by lightning on a clear day *and* attacked by a shark while standing in 2 feet of ocean water all at the same time than winning the Powerball.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I can help with that. You would be more likely to get struck by lightning on a clear day *and* attacked by a shark while standing in 2 feet of ocean water all at the same time than winning the Powerball.
Click to expand...

Yet, they say someone does indeed win...And it costs a buck....What can you do these days for a buck?
 
Woopee! We're going to have the best President and representatives that money can buy.
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
Nope. There's no evidence that they hold any more power than anyone else in this country when it comes to influencing politicians.
Click to expand...

You don't think a person who puts $900 million into political campaigns has more influence than you do!?
 
SheWolf said:
Spending billions on a political campaign is money wasted. It doesn't create long term jobs in the economy. The money goes largely into advertising and developing political ads that never get aired, hair, make up, political coaching, etc. It's a very pretentious, nearly two year spectacle of turd polishing.
Click to expand...

The Koch's have reaped many financial benefits from their political funding. Many of their favorite issues are ones that financially benefit them directly. Even when you don't win a campaign, politicians and others with power remember that you supported their side and will reward you later.
 
Wait...I thought Harry Reid and Elizabeth Warren said the Koch Brothers were anarchists?
 
Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug "Why does money from the left get a pass but Koch money gets scrutiny?"

1. With some exceptions (ie. Soros) money from the left comes from organizations representing thousands of people who made modest donations, not just a handful of extremely rich people.

2. Most of the causes championed by the left do not financially benefit a small number of people. Most of the causes championed by the right do financially benefit only a small number of people who are already rich and powerful.
 
The difference with Koch money is that it gets spent early and often, trashing Senators like Kay Hagan, driving up their negatives.
Meanwhile, DEMs had their collective thumbs up their asses, spending too late when minds were made up or turned off.

Nice that DEMs felt sorry for GOPs over Christmas 2013 by not pounding them on the shutdown.
GOPs didn't have that problem with niceties, trashing the ACA rollout over Christmas .
 
Grand Mal said:
Here's an idea. Auction the Presidency! Money ahead, put it into general revenue. Hell, it couldn't be a worse system than the crapshoot a federal election is now.
Click to expand...

You guys are pretending that your side isn't spending money just as fast

Those 35k.dinners that the president has sure aren't for libraries now are they?
 
Some say that, under the Citizens United ruling that unions contribute more to Democrats than the Kochs do to republicans, while others say that the Kochs are buying up our democracy in bigger numbers.
Fact is that they are about a wash, canceling each other out.
Citizens United hasn't really changed the balance much at all.
I believe the SCOTUS thought this all through before they ruled on it.
 
gdgyva said:
You guys are pretending that your side isn't spending money just as fast

Those 35k.dinners that the president has sure aren't for libraries now are they?
Click to expand...

Nuttin' to do with me. I'm not American, and if I were I wouldn't be a Democrat. Well, who can say how I'd think if I grew up in America, but neither party looks like liberal to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom