• 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

Absolutely. Campaign reform needs to happen due to abuses on both sides of the aisle. I've never made the claim that Republicans alone are to blame. We need all big money out of our elections to restore the integrity of our election process. I've advocated for public financing of our elections for the last two decades.

why would public financing be the answer?
and how would it be structured to prevent abuse?
 
You're right, knowing that the last republicans who crossed AFP and only voted 90% with Brownback saw the money against them balloon to $200,000 in the next election doesn't have any influence at all on votes....

Give me a break. You have to be willingly naive to believe that kind of money doesn't influence votes and get results. The Koch brothers and their allies know better. Unless you think they're stupid. Is that what you think?

I was talking about influence on politicians, not influence on the voters. Pay attention to my posts.
 
why would public financing be the answer?

and how would it be structured to prevent abuse?

I don't think anyone believes public financing is THE answer, just an improvement from the current system. Thanks to recent SC rulings, communities cannot limit outside spending, so the big money will flow in when it suits the big donors. But at least public financing gives candidates without that kind of support a reasonable chance to fund a credible campaign. Nothing can do much more than that.
 
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.
Can I assume you are equally concerned about the big money influence on the left as well?
 
Again. You're in the wrong country. I think you could become more fulfilled in a country more in keeping with your vision.
There are probably better fits out there, but I figure it's more convenient to change the hearts and minds of this one than to have to register a forwarding address down at the post office.
 
There are probably better fits out there, but I figure it's more convenient to change the hearts and minds of this one than to have to register a forwarding address down at the post office.

You know, Rome wasn't built in a day, so I admire your tenacity.
 
I was talking about influence on politicians, not influence on the voters. Pay attention to my posts.

I didn't say voters - I said "votes" and I thought it was clear from the context I was talking about legislative votes.

In Kansas, what you now KNOW is if you are a legislator and vote against AFP, you'll get a flood of money spent against you in the next election. The example I quoted was a "moderate" GOPer who only voted with Brownback 90% of the time. Normal elections cost him about $40,000. After voting against Brownback on taxes, he faced $200,000 spent against him - five times normal.

If you can't acknowledge that kind of implicit threat against anyone voting against AFP interests acts as a powerful influence on votes by LEGISLATORS, you're trying hard to miss the point.
 
Can I assume you are equally concerned about the big money influence on the left as well?

I can't speak for SheWolf, but I don't want to live in a plutocracy, with elections decided by dueling billionaires.

Does big money from either side concern you?
 
why would public financing be the answer?
and how would it be structured to prevent abuse?

Each candidate would receive a certain amount of public funds to be allowed to spend for their campaign. They would be allowed to spend the funds as they want but have to account for the use of the funds and could not exceed it.

Another way that you could do it, is you could allow a certain number of mailers, print advertising and TV advertising.
 
Each candidate would receive a certain amount of public funds to be allowed to spend for their campaign. They would be allowed to spend the funds as they want but have to account for the use of the funds and could not exceed it.

Another way that you could do it, is you could allow a certain number of mailers, print advertising and TV advertising.

One thing that might be a step in the right direction is that candidates have 30 days to campaign. Of course, the same problems crop up, but at least the bulk of the spending is limited to those 30 days.

The greater question is how to remove the special interest groups from pushing the greater agenda? Annenberg Trust, a member of the Progressive Machine, has access to our nations public schools through it's Annenberg Learner program. The NEA, the national teachers union, has it's Director as the head of the mighty Democracy Alliance, which is the central core of the Progressive Machine.

AFSCME is another massive public union spender pushing Progressive agenda's and backing liberal/progressive candidates. The SEIU is also similarly spending and affiliated. While their dues may be collected from the individual government employees, it's the taxpayers who are providing the money. How does this spending get accounted for?



How do these ongoing enterprises get removed from equation?
 
One thing that might be a step in the right direction is that candidates have 30 days to campaign. Of course, the same problems crop up, but at least the bulk of the spending is limited to those 30 days.

The greater question is how to remove the special interest groups from pushing the greater agenda? Annenberg Trust, a member of the Progressive Machine, has access to our nations public schools through it's Annenberg Learner program. The NEA, the national teachers union, has it's Director as the head of the mighty Democracy Alliance, which is the central core of the Progressive Machine.

AFSCME is another massive public union spender pushing Progressive agenda's and backing liberal/progressive candidates. The SEIU is also similarly spending and affiliated. While their dues may be collected from the individual government employees, it's the taxpayers who are providing the money. How does this spending get accounted for?

How do these ongoing enterprises get removed from equation?

It's so sad that poor conservatives don't exert influence anywhere.... The system is rigged! :roll:
 
It's so sad that poor conservatives don't exert influence anywhere.... The system is rigged! :roll:

LOL. Conservatives certainly have much to learn about the impressive effort of Progressives and the propaganda machine they have created to spread their ideological agenda.

That's why at the end of the day I don't have a problem with Citizens United, or spending on any level. The more the merrier. It's a good stimulus, and a whole bunch of people get employed, and businesses get a big influx of dollars.
 
LOL. Conservatives certainly have much to learn about the impressive effort of Progressives and the propaganda machine they have created to spread their ideological agenda.

More likely is you don't know or care about the many ways conservatives "spread their ideological agenda."

Just as one example, how many lobbyists are in D.C. and state houses right now pushing for the interests of inner city poor people. When you get that answer, figure out how many are in D.C. and statehouses paid for by business interests to advance their agenda. I'm guessing the ratio is 1-100 or so, maybe 1-1,000.

That's why at the end of the day I don't have a problem with Citizens United, or spending on any level. The more the merrier. It's a good stimulus, and a whole bunch of people get employed, and businesses get a big influx of dollars.

If I thought my interests aligned with the billionaires, I wouldn't have a problem with the rising costs of elections and the domination of the process by a relatively few mega donors in many races. But I know any overlap between our interests and theirs is purely coincidental.
 
More likely is you don't know or care about the many ways conservatives "spread their ideological agenda."

Just as one example, how many lobbyists are in D.C. and state houses right now pushing for the interests of inner city poor people. When you get that answer, figure out how many are in D.C. and statehouses paid for by business interests to advance their agenda. I'm guessing the ratio is 1-100 or so, maybe 1-1,000.


If I thought my interests aligned with the billionaires, I wouldn't have a problem with the rising costs of elections and the domination of the process by a relatively few mega donors in many races. But I know any overlap between our interests and theirs is purely coincidental.

To what do you base your estimate on lobbists? Please provide proof that you're even remotely in the ball park. Also, please provide the basis for their lobbying efforts. Do you think the SEIU is lobbying for business interests? How about the AFL-CIO? A cursory review of the White House guest log indicates your estimates are not very accurate. I would suspect the same holds true on Capitol Hill.

The fact of the matter is that this spending would be very difficult to regulate. While I can bitch about the offensive nature of the Annenberg Learner program being used in public education, it's up to the parents to stop such efforts by these groups. I think they are too disinterested to do so, and appear in many states to be willing to turn the parenting over to the government.

So, that being the case, let the money flow. It's not just from billionaires, as your meme suggests, it's from all directions. They are not putting the money in a pile and burning it, they are spending it on ways they think will influence people towards support of their cause. Even the losers see their money being spent, so what's to worry about?

Frankly, if you tracked ALL the money, Liberal/Progressives should be quiet about reform, since they are way ahead of the game.
 
LOL. Conservatives certainly have much to learn about the impressive effort of Progressives and the propaganda machine they have created to spread their ideological agenda.

That's why at the end of the day I don't have a problem with Citizens United, or spending on any level. The more the merrier. It's a good stimulus, and a whole bunch of people get employed, and businesses get a big influx of dollars.
I still believe that we could certainly do far more good for far more people if we stimulated different parts of the economy than muckrakers, pundits, and professional spin artists.
 
To what do you base your estimate on lobbists? Please provide proof that you're even remotely in the ball park. Also, please provide the basis for their lobbying efforts. Do you think the SEIU is lobbying for business interests? How about the AFL-CIO? A cursory review of the White House guest log indicates your estimates are not very accurate. I would suspect the same holds true on Capitol Hill.

OK, here's a list of top spending by lobbyists. You tell me who dominates this list?

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

Here's another list - labor is ranked 12 of the top 13.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=c&showYear=a

According to this, lobbying totaled $3,200 million in 2014.


The fact of the matter is that this spending would be very difficult to regulate. While I can bitch about the offensive nature of the Annenberg Learner program being used in public education, it's up to the parents to stop such efforts by these groups. I think they are too disinterested to do so, and appear in many states to be willing to turn the parenting over to the government.

So, that being the case, let the money flow. It's not just from billionaires, as your meme suggests, it's from all directions. They are not putting the money in a pile and burning it, they are spending it on ways they think will influence people towards support of their cause. Even the losers see their money being spent, so what's to worry about?

I've said what's to worry about - a political system that answers only to the Fortune 500 and the CEO class. I guess that doesn't worry you, but it does me.

Frankly, if you tracked ALL the money, Liberal/Progressives should be quiet about reform, since they are way ahead of the game.

Yeah, well, I think that's delusional. If you look at the big money going to democrats, it's from the same business interests hedging their bets. Wall Street, healthcare, etc. We were talking about healthcare on another thread and the person the Democrat Baucus hired to write the ACA was a Wellpoint VP.
 
Last edited:
I still believe that we could certainly do far more good for far more people if we stimulated different parts of the economy than muckrakers, pundits, and professional spin artists.

I certainly agree. However, it seems to get there, we need muckrakers, pundits, and professional spin artists. I can be informed, and you can be informed, but we are rare birds. The rest might have a hard time identifying Florida on a map, so the circus continues.
 
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?

My issue with that would be the fact that we have a system which allows so much money to be accumulated in the hands of the few, extracted off the hard work of the many.
 
OK, here's a list of top spending by lobbyists. You tell me who dominates this list?

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

Here's another list - labor is ranked 12 of the top 13.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=c&showYear=a

According to this, lobbying totaled $3,200 million in 2014.




I've said what's to worry about - a political system that answers only to the Fortune 500 and the CEO class. I guess that doesn't worry you, but it does me.



Yeah, well, I think that's delusional. If you look at the big money going to democrats, it's from the same business interests hedging their bets. Wall Street, healthcare, etc. We were talking about healthcare on another thread and the person the Democrat Baucus hired to write the ACA was a Wellpoint VP.

Again, I'm not sure where you're headed. You appear to be assigning intent based on the name of a organization or group, rather than looking at the actual causes and messages they are lobbying for. The USCC has been pushing for immigration reform. Isn't that lobbying for the poor and disenfranchised?

I've written that I think there should be a free for all when it comes to money because I see no workable solution that curtails it's influence. Cut it way back and restrict spending used to influence political agenda's, and then they get into our nations schools and spread their propaganda another way, just as the progressive Annenberg Foundation has done.

If you've got a better idea how to do it, I'd be interested to read about it.
 
You know, I don't recall the NY Times ever doing any similar stories about George Soros when he was the multi-million dollar sugar daddy for the democrats during the Bush Administration, does anyone else? As a matter of fact, Soros still to this day pours millions and millions into democratic political organisations, so I wonder when we'll be seeing the times story on him?

The phrases "Fat chance" and "When hell freezes over" for some odd reason just popped into my head.
 
My issue with that would be the fact that we have a system which allows so much money to be accumulated in the hands of the few, extracted off the hard work of the many.

It's not "extracted" from anyone. That term implies theft or some type of coercion.

The right of the people - ALL of the people - to profit from their labor, their wit, their wisdom and whatever other LEGAL means they use should NEVER be infringed upon. Furthermore, just because I make a million dollars in no way, shape or forms means that you are somehow prevented from doing the same.
 
Maybe it's because you don't read the NYT.

George Soros News - The New York Times

You should. You might learn something.

You should read the articles. You wouldn't look so foolish if you had.

There is certainly no similarity between the Koch Brothers expose, and those you've identified, which was the point of the post you responded to.

I would not expect there to be any similarity from the ubber liberal NY Times, but dang 3G, you're going to need some bleach to clean this one off.
 
Again, I'm not sure where you're headed. You appear to be assigning intent based on the name of a organization or group, rather than looking at the actual causes and messages they are lobbying for. The USCC has been pushing for immigration reform. Isn't that lobbying for the poor and disenfranchised?

Of course it's not - it's lobbying for low cost, disposable labor, which will effectively drive down wages across the scale. And it makes my point - any alignment of interests between the poor (to the extent there is one on immigration and that's doubtful) and the Fortune 500 is merely coincidental.

I've written that I think there should be a free for all when it comes to money because I see no workable solution that curtails it's influence. Cut it way back and restrict spending used to influence political agenda's, and then they get into our nations schools and spread their propaganda another way, just as the progressive Annenberg Foundation has done.

If you've got a better idea how to do it, I'd be interested to read about it.

I'm really not sure why you have to make the issue so partisan. Take any big state and there are conservative influences on what goes into the textbooks.

And any start has to be to get back to limits on political spending, public financing, greater sunlight on political donors, available in real time, etc. There is no ONE solution, but the road we're on is, IMO, a guarantee of plutocracy - selling our legislators to the highest bidder. Not just legislators - the judiciary as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom