• 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

ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It wasn't an 'expose', it was a pretty straight news story. So are the ones on Soros.
 
I remember all those republicans like shelden anderson that spent money to deny obama a 2nd term. Money well spent.
 
JasperL said:
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'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.
Click to expand...

You see, that is what I mean by questioning what you're driving at. You see enslavement, and I see excusing illegals for political favor.

As to your point about being partisan, I'm not. I'm using examples I am familiar with of extreme partisan behavior to illustrate the challenge of trying to regulate only one part of it. I don't see how the government puts a stop to it all. So let the arena of public opinion decide. A money free for all.

I will say something must be done to get groups like Annenberg out of public education, or alternatively, allow conservative groups equal access into it. Reverse the rolls, and liberals would be screaming bloody murder, as they already have. In my kingdom, neither would have access to public education. The 3 R's. Know them.
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm perhaps more cynical about the amount of "informing" political campaigns actually do. I've rarely heard much deep political theory espoused in campaign ads.;)
 
Unrepresented said:
I'm perhaps more cynical about the amount of "informing" political campaigns actually do. I've rarely heard much deep political theory espoused in campaign ads.;)
Click to expand...

I'm right there with you UR. I suppose that is why I'm intrigued by the idea of limiting the actual campaign time a candidate can run. However, as you can imagine, I'm not a big advocate for more government control, so I don't know how outside groups could be stopped from advocating a cause a candidate would then endorse later.

Again, for me, this leads me back to spending all they want, and let the voters decide. After all, in the end, only a small portion of the population cares enough to determine the course of government anyway.
 
Grim17 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Maybe it's just me but there is a difference, between 100 million and 900 million, no?

I think both amounts are excessive but one seems to be a hell of a lot more. Does it bother you when Soros donates but not Koch brothers?
 
Last edited:
99percenter said:
I remember all those republicans like shelden anderson that spent money to deny obama a 2nd term. Money well spent.
Click to expand...

I remember all those democrats that spent money to deny the republicans the Senate majority. Money well spent.
 
americanwoman said:
Maybe it's just me but there is a difference, besides a letter, between 100 million and 900 billion, no?

I think both amounts are excessive but one seems to be a hell of a lot more. Does it bother you when Soros donates but not Koch brothers?
Click to expand...

Who's spending $900 billion?
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you were talking about legislative votes, your article still has nothing to do with it. The article presented no evidence that the Koch brothers influence politicians to the point that politicians vote against their will because the Koch brothers force them to.
 
Threegoofs said:
And I appreciate that you see what you want to see. I also note that much of it departs from reality (because as we know, reality has a well known liberal bias).
Click to expand...

LOL.

Please.

Let's take a quick sampling.

Koch Brothers - NY Times

The Kochs are longtime opponents of campaign disclosure laws. Unlike the parties, their network is constructed chiefly of nonprofit groups that are not required to reveal donors. That makes it almost impossible to tell how much of the money is provided by the Kochs — among the wealthiest men in the country — and how much by other donors.​

Soros - NY Times

George Soros, the retired hedge fund billionaire and longtime patron of liberal causes, will invest $2.5 million in the effort, officials involved with the plan said. His participation is a signal that some of the wealthy donors who arrived late to the Democrats’ “super PAC” efforts in 2012 are committing early for the next round.​

Details of the effort were presented this week at a Washington conference of the Democracy Alliance, a coalition of some of the country’s biggest liberal givers, which works to steer money and to coordinate political work among advocacy groups. Mr. Soros and other alliance donors were early investors in Catalist, and many of the groups funded by the alliance now buy data from it.​

Hmmm. Any mention of the vast array of non profits his Democracy Alliance funds? Any mention of the closed door meetings they hold?

At a glance, Mr. Soros, a hedge fund manager who has helped finance “super PACs" and collaborated with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, does not fit the typical profile of a supporter for Mr. de Blasio, who has pledged to raise taxes on the wealthy and turn back Bloomberg administration policies and who is a frequent critic of unrestricted political spending.​

Mr. Soros, a "hedge fund manager"? LOL. Any mention of his global Open Society Institute?


Sorry my friend, but you've not only tripped over your slip, but you did so in the corral. Again, you're going to need bleach to get the stains off.
 
Unrepresented said:
People should not be happy that a billion dollars is being wasted on promoting cynicism, primarily in a handful of swing districts to promote and maintain the interests of a billionaire plutocracy.
Click to expand...

Lol....

The Unions lose their decades old monopoly when it comes to massive campaign contributions , political influence and lobbying and its the end of our Democracy.
 
ocean515 said:
I'm right there with you UR. I suppose that is why I'm intrigued by the idea of limiting the actual campaign time a candidate can run. However, as you can imagine, I'm not a big advocate for more government control, so I don't know how outside groups could be stopped from advocating a cause a candidate would then endorse later.

Again, for me, this leads me back to spending all they want, and let the voters decide. After all, in the end, only a small portion of the population cares enough to determine the course of government anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm similar minded in wanting as little government limitations on free speech, especially political speech, but I'm convinced that access to speech is an issue. If access to capital determines access to speech there needs to be some sort of moderator to determine that all voices have opportunity.

I don't want to be influenced by the loudest voices, I want to be influenced by the most valuable voices.
 
Fenton said:
Lol....

The Unions lose their decades old monopoly when it comes to massive campaign contributions , political influence and lobbying and its the end of our Democracy.
Click to expand...
kochspending.png
 
d head said:
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.
Click to expand...

Kochs=two people
Unions=14.6 million people*

*Union Members Summary
 
Unrepresented said:
kochspending.png
Click to expand...

Lol....thats right.

The untold amounts of donations to the Democrat party and to Obamas re-election camapign came from unnamed sources.

You guys just get a little nervous when you lose your monopolies and Unions have been corrupting the Democratic process for decades.
 
Hard Truth said:
Kochs=two people
Unions=14.6 million people*

*Union Members Summary
Click to expand...

Bull, the Unions donate to and support the Democrat Party and have been for decades.

The last Union I was in didn't ask me wether or not I wanted my Union dues to go to a Conservative or Progressive candidate.

They took it upon their selves to make that decision for me.

Face it, you guys lost your monopoly and now all you can do is hypocritically complain about political donations coming from large private organizations.
 
Unrepresented said:
I'm similar minded in wanting as little government limitations on free speech, especially political speech, but I'm convinced that access to speech is an issue. If access to capital determines access to speech there needs to be some sort of moderator to determine that all voices have opportunity.

I don't want to be influenced by the loudest voices, I want to be influenced by the most valuable voices.
Click to expand...

Do you think there can be trust in people to discern the difference, or will it just be the loudest that gets the attention?

For example, one argument against limited campaign time is it favors loud over content.
 
Fenton said:
Lol....thats right.

The untold amounts of donations to the Democrat party and to Obamas re-election camapign came from unnamed sources.

You guys just get a little nervous when you lose your monopolies and Unions have been corrupting the Democratic process for decades.
Click to expand...

Citation needed.
Fenton said:
Bull, the Unions donate to and support the Democrat Party and have been for decades.

The last Union I was in didn't ask me wether or not I wanted my Union dues to go to a Conservative or Progressive candidate.

They took it upon their selves to make that decision for me.

Face it, you guys lost your monopoly and now all you can do is hypocritically complain about political donations coming from large private organizations.
Click to expand...
I would want campaign contributions to be aimed at candidates who support workers if the contributions were being made by an organization formed of and for workers.

That's generally a position held by democrats.
 
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...

How are the conservatives looking this cycle? Is Harper out?
 
tres borrachos said:
If you were talking about legislative votes, your article still has nothing to do with it. The article presented no evidence that the Koch brothers influence politicians to the point that politicians vote against their will because the Koch brothers force them to.
Click to expand...

So do you think the Koch brothers are morons and all that money is wasted?

And I'm not making an argument that politicians vote against "their will." What is self evident is that big money changes the dynamic of what vote maximizes a politician's self interest. They can vote against the Koch brothers and KNOW they'll face an avalance of dog crap in the next primary, or they can vote with them and receive significant financial support. Are you really contending that the money has no influence on which way a legislator votes? I don't think you can believe that. So I'm not sure what your point is.
 
Fenton said:
Bull, the Unions donate to and support the Democrat Party and have been for decades.

The last Union I was in didn't ask me wether or not I wanted my Union dues to go to a Conservative or Progressive candidate.

They took it upon their selves to make that decision for me.

Face it, you guys lost your monopoly and now all you can do is hypocritically complain about political donations coming from large private organizations.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I don't recall any of the companies I'm invested in asking me about their political activities either. Hmmmm........
 
tres borrachos said:
I remember all those democrats that spent money to deny the republicans the Senate majority. Money well spent.
Click to expand...

Not really. Do you have any links? Even the DNC gave up on a lot of democrats and didn't pour a lot of money into the races.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom