Yep, only public unions should be able to do that.
:lol: Bless your heart.Nope. There's no evidence that they hold any more power than anyone else in this country when it comes to influencing politicians.
Buying influence bother you?
I truly hope you're being satirical.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.
Or at least a local politician.
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.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.
:lol: Bless your heart.
Now continue believing that. Nope- all for the good of the country.
Perhaps Google States Attorney General and donations from corps. Eye opener.
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.When do we get to hear about Dem donors like Soros and what they plan to spend? This is getting exciting!
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.
Why does money from the left get a pass but Koch money gets scrutiny?
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.
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.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.
:lamoNope. There's no evidence that they hold any more power than anyone else in this country when it comes to influencing politicians.
More like inconvenient truth.Pure delfection
Beat me to it.When do we get to hear about Dem donors like Soros and what they plan to spend? This is getting exciting!
How much is it worth to you to vote Republican?
:lamo
More like inconvenient truth.
Beat me to 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.
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.