• 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

EMNofSeattle said:
How are the conservatives looking this cycle? Is Harper out?
Click to expand...

It's looking like a Harper win at this point - perhaps minority government, but still possible majority once again. The two prime issues in the election will likely be terrorism, because of the ISIS issue and the killings in Ottawa and Quebec, and the economy, because of the drop in oil prices and the Conservatives bringing in a budget surplus this year. The Liberals and the NDP have nothing to challenge that two punch.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

They support the candidates whose political leans are closely aligned with their own. Maverick, I know. Imagine doing that?

There is no evidence that they bribe or influence politicians to cast a vote that the politician would not otherwise do. No problems for me. God bless the first amendment and the right to support the candidate you want.
 
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...

Unions are democratic organizations. You could have attended meetings and had input into that decision.
 
99percenter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, so nobody donated to democratic candidates in 2014? They all funded their own campaigns. That explains why they got their asses handed to them.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out before. When you have a crappy product, you need lots of money to market it if you want it to sell.

Business 101. The Koch's are well aware of this concept.
 
Originally Posted by Hard Truth Woopee! We're going to have the best President and representatives that money can buy.

EnigmaO01 said:
How do you know they're the best?
Click to expand...

Because they're the most expensive. Everybody knows that the best stuff costs the most.
 
DA60 said:
So what?

The only people that change their vote because of campaign ads are political morons and/or the weak...I don't care who they vote for....
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the people who make up the Uninformed Gullible Middle are the ones that decide the outcome of elections.
 
Hard Truth said:
Unfortunately the people who make up the Uninformed Middle are the ones that decide the outcome of elections.
Click to expand...

And sometimes they vote for the same guy I do, and sometimes they don't. That's been the case for a very long time, and money from the Kochs won't change that.
 
tres borrachos said:
Oh, so nobody donated to democratic candidates in 2014? They all funded their own campaigns. That explains why they got their asses handed to them.
Click to expand...

At least they didn't spend a lot of money like the republicans did in 2012 only to have their asses handed to them.
 
tres borrachos said:
And sometimes they vote for the same guy I do, and sometimes they don't. That's been the case for a very long time, and money from the Kochs won't change that.
Click to expand...

The Uniformed Gullible Middle are the ones most influenced by campaign advertising.
 
99percenter said:
At least they didn't spend a lot of money like the republicans did in 2012 only to have their asses handed to them.
Click to expand...

The Republicans got their asses handed to them? Yes, because we all know that the only election in this country in 2012 was the Presidential election. How right you are!
 
tres borrachos said:
They support the candidates whose political leans are closely aligned with their own. Maverick, I know. Imagine doing that?

There is no evidence that they bribe or influence politicians to cast a vote that the politician would not otherwise do. No problems for me. God bless the first amendment and the right to support the candidate you want.
Click to expand...

They certainly believe, based on tons of evidence, money does have an effect on legislative outcomes. I would also guess people at that level have a lot better grasp than I do of whether their nearly $billion in contributions have an effect or not, and this year they're committed to spending more than they did last cycle.
 
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...

Citizens United is clearly one of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court in history. It essentially legalizes bribery. This democracy is dead.
 
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...

Does Brand X peanut butter have control over our nation's laws?
 
Hard Truth said:
The Uniformed Gullible Middle are the ones most influenced by campaign advertising.
Click to expand...

And they are sometimes swayed by one candidate's message, and sometimes by another. What's wrong with that? Are you saying that they shouldn't vote because they're "uninformed" and "gullible"?

Funny, I remember seeing clips of people thinking that Obama was going to save the world, and that they wouldn't have to worry about paying their mortgages anymore, and that they'd get great jobs, and get off welfare, and there would be no more blue states and red states, and everyone would get to keep their doctors, and there would be racial harmony all over, as long as they cast their votes for Obama. Which were they - uninformed, or gullible?

In other words, it happens all the time - and if the Koch PAC were likely to donate to politicians whose views you supported, I doubt you'd be so concerned about the "uninformed" and "gullible" middle voters.
 
Geoist said:
Citizens United is clearly one of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court in history. It essentially legalizes bribery. This democracy is dead.
Click to expand...

Agreed- Money talks.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, why oppose domestic campaign spending that would ultimately put politicians in office who will proceed to send more jobs overseas? ;)
 
JasperL said:
They certainly believe, based on tons of evidence, money does have an effect on legislative outcomes. I would also guess people at that level have a lot better grasp than I do of whether their nearly $billion in contributions have an effect or not, and this year they're committed to spending more than they did last cycle.
Click to expand...

Great. If there is tons of evidence of their money forcing a politician to cast a vote on legislation in a way that he wouldn't have voted without their influence, then it should be easy for you to post tons of links showing that.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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...

It doesn't matter how good of a message you have if the other guy has a bullhorn.
 
tres borrachos said:
The Republicans got their asses handed to them? Yes, because we all know that the only election in this country in 2012 was the Presidential election. How right you are!
Click to expand...

232
 
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...

Difference is, how you spend your money doesn't affect the average citizen. Their money is intended to have a HUGE impact on our rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom