Koch Brothers Plan to Spend $900 million in 2016

[Benuty]

Also, was this necessary? I think people had enough of Democrats for the last decade. I'm not saying that Republicans will do anything better or more efficiently, I'm just saying that the US would like to see the wallpaper change, even if the wall is literally a mountain of feces.

The last decade? It's been 6 years.

Depends on the calender system you are using.

Close enough for some anyway.

[Benian Republic]

Seems like American Democracy is slowly evolving into a high stakes auction.

I like this

[Norstal]

Atleast the Romans didn't delude themselves once the Republic began to die (sans the ones who assassinated Caesar).

Pretty sure they did.

In any case, this is a wasted effort on their part.

I think there's been a study that said the amount of money being spent on an election or for voting in general (like propositions) doesn't correlate well with victories. I even remember a California proposition campaign being funded by insurance companies reaching over $16 million while the opposition only have a handful funded. The opposition won.

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_33,_Automobile_Insurance_Persistency_Discounts_(2012)#Donors
So for those of you crying out bribery...no, this is not bribery. If it was, it would work.

[Wisconsin9]

Bastards.

[Zakuvia]

Also, was this necessary? I think people had enough of Democrats for the last decade. I'm not saying that Republicans will do anything better or more efficiently, I'm just saying that the US would like to see the wallpaper change, even if the wall is literally a mountain of feces.

The last decade? It's been 6 years.

I was speaking futuristically.

[Olthar]

What do you expect from a plutocratic aristocracy?

[Securitan]

What do you expect from a plutocratic aristocracy?

roman food

[Greed and Death]

this is free speech and though shall not restrict it.

Money isn't speech. Even if it was speech, a corporation does not have the right to freedom of speech.

Money can be but is not always speech, if we were to restrict all political advertising spending you have restricted speech. This is why why spending on political ads are allowed but campaign donations are restricted.

As for the corporation vs people that is an issue of formality, if you want to prevent corporations from defending their speech in court by all means do so but you have to allow any one of their share holders the legal ability to challenge the regulation in the corporation's stead.

[Infected Mushroom]

It shouldn't matter.

Its only a problem because a large percentage of the electorate is silly enough to be influenced by advertisements and tours (which swallow gold like a pit).

Let them spend billions of dollars on getting their guy on TV and on tours as much as possible.

Me? If I were American, I'd vote the same way based on my own self interest.

One click of Wikipedia on both candidates, and I'll decide.

They can spend billions of dollars on changing what the papers say or how much screen time their candidate gets or whatever other ad they can shoot out there, I'm not going to change my mind if there's no legitimate reason.

Unless the money's going directly into my own pocket, they won't get me to change my vote.

[Geilinor]

One click of Wikipedia on both candidates, and I'll decide.

Heh, what a bad idea.

[Infected Mushroom]

One click of Wikipedia on both candidates, and I'll decide.

Heh, what a bad idea.

its fairly accurate for this sort of thing on the night of the vote.

How are advertisements and campaign donations supposed to affect how millions of people vote anyways?

Is it like some kind of subliminal propaganda?

I don't think I'm pre-disposed to voting for whoever I see more of on TV....

[Ganos Lao]

They're going to feel really stupid when President Clinton takes the oath of office in 2017.

The GOP isn't going to run a moderate like John Huntsman, or a Libertarian like Rand Paul, or even a friendly Conservative like Mike Huckabee.
Because those guys can actually win elections.

It's probably going to be Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Chris Christie or God forbid....Mitt Romney.... These incompetent establishment republicans who don't inspire the poor, minorities, young people or women....demographics that are key to winning an election! They don't stand for anything and how they got elected in the first place is beyond me.

Secretary Clinton is going to trounce those guys in the election and rightly so. If my party has to lose 3 elections to get the message that the American people aren't lunatics well so be it. The Kochs will be wasting their money, just like in 2012. It's disgusting you can spend this much, but until we repeal citizens united and invest in campaign finance reform...tough titty.

If the GOP needs to field a candidate, I suspect my man, Herman Sugar Cain, is still avaliable.

[Geilinor]

Heh, what a bad idea.

its fairly accurate for this sort of thing on the night of the vote.

How are advertisements and campaign donations supposed to affect how millions of people vote anyways?

Is it like some kind of subliminal propaganda?

I don't think I'm pre-disposed to voting for whoever I see more of on TV....

No, I mean that voting based on Wikipedia is a bad idea.

[Chedastan]

What do you expect from a plutocratic aristocracy?

roman food

Well all that's left now is some incest and some more general hedonism, and we're practically there.

Seriously though, this is just tragic.

[Scomagia]

One click of Wikipedia on both candidates, and I'll decide.

Heh, what a bad idea.

It actually makes my plan of getting drunk and voting for dead guys sound a little less silly. I mean, at least I'm going to be ridiculous on purpose.

[Norstal]

There should be no limit. It's their money, let them use it as they see fit. When Soros does this, I don't care.

I don't think it's so much the idea that we should let them for the sake of letting them. Financing seems to have minimal impact on election victories. Romney spent more than Obama, although the latter did raised more. So I'm not worried about that.

What I am worried about is voter confidence. You look at this thread. Look at all the jaded voters, the cynicism that everyone have. We need rules on funding limits to stop their cynicism. That's more concerning than what these private individuals spent.

[Infected Mushroom]

Heh, what a bad idea.

It actually makes my plan of getting drunk and voting for dead guys sound a little less silly. I mean, at least I'm going to be ridiculous on purpose.

what do you use then?

[Olthar]

What do you expect from a plutocratic aristocracy?

roman food

Italian food is quite popular, especially pizza.

[Scomagia]

It actually makes my plan of getting drunk and voting for dead guys sound a little less silly. I mean, at least I'm going to be ridiculous on purpose.

what do you use then?

You want to know what I'm going to use to decide which dead guys I want to vote for? Or do you mean what I'm going to use to get drunk on election day?

[Zeinbrad]

I wonder what the founding fathers think right now about this.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm just not sure how this erodes democracy so long as the money isn't directly going into the pockets of voters (which would be against the law).

If the people are so easily influenced by advertisements, tours, slanted news broadcasts, and other things that are in the air that these billions of dollars presumably are being used to spread... then that's a problem with the voting class.

The people get what they want, and if they are too silly to know what they want, then they get what they want nevertheless.

As for candidates being pre-selected because of how much financial support they get... well that's nothing new really. Politics has always been almost the exclusive domain of the rich.

Even if you consider Canada (where they have ceilings on campaign contributions), Parliament is still the domain of the super rich. There's always money behind them, if its a few hundred million dollars or a few million dollars... its all just numbers that most of us will never see in our lifetimes anyways. Is it really such a big deal?

[Geilinor]

The GOP isn't going to run a moderate like John Huntsman, or a Libertarian like Rand Paul, or even a friendly Conservative like Mike Huckabee.
Because those guys can actually win elections.

Mike Huckabee can still win elections?

[Infected Mushroom]

what do you use then?

You want to know what I'm going to use to decide which dead guys I want to vote for? Or do you mean what I'm going to use to get drunk on election day?

well, assuming you have to vote for one of the upcoming candidates. What resources would you recommend for unbiased accounts of their platforms, past record etc?

[Olthar]

I wonder what the founding fathers think right now about this.

Dead people can't think.

[Chedastan]

I wonder what the founding fathers think right now about this.

Dead people can't think.

And even if they were alive, they'll be too busy trying to comprehend everything about the 21st century.