The Triumph of Super PACs

[ClydeR]

For the first time, Super PACs in 2016 will likely outspend the candidates they support.


Jeb Bush,Scott Walker and Chris Christie have recruited top political staffers, headlined scores of fundraisers for their political committees and traveled to states that hold early presidential primaries to tout their accomplishments.

But they haven’t publicly said, “I am running for president.”

Those magic words are important because this election cycle is the first in which several likely candidates created super PACs and other fundraising organizations months before starting campaigns. That points to the big advantage of the pre-candidate phase: the ability to personally solicit large amounts of money that announced candidates are barred from seeking.

More... (http://www.wsj.com/articles/finance-twist-may-play-role-in-when-candidates-announce-1429198885)



"They have so radically changed the game that serious candidates for president cannot, will not be able to compete without a very substantial super PAC or set of super PACs," says Gregg Phillips, who was a 2012 strategist for the pro–Newt Gingrich group Winning Our Future. "If you're a candidate, you have to raise money in $2,700 increments. If you're a super PAC, you can raise money in million-dollar chunks."

The PACs' newfound prominence, and their accompanying restrictions on communication, makes decisions about whom candidates tap to run his or her super PAC all the more complicated: It must be someone they trust, and someone who knows them well enough to channel their gut political instincts on matters of strategy and messaging, but not someone on whom the candidate depends for day-in, day-out counsel. (Those who are out of office, like Bush, are taking advantage of loose rules and enforcement to work in tandem with their super PACs during their pre-candidacy phase.)

More... (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/2016-election-super-pacs-staff-20150417)

The ability to raise money for his Super PAC before he says the magic words is why Bush has not yet announced, or so most people believe. But if that's so, why did Clinton announce (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uY7gLZDmn4) when she did? With no primary opponents, she could have waited months.

[Tgo01]

USA! USA! USA!

[Tgo01]

Why are people so concerned with money in campaigns anyways?

[ClydeR]

Why are people so concerned with money in campaigns anyways?

We're concerned about all forms of free speech, not just money.

[Tgo01]

We're concerned about all forms of free speech, not just money.

Oh. Okay.

Why are people so concerned with free speech in campaigns anyways?

[waywardgs]

Oh. Okay.

Why are people so concerned with free speech in campaigns anyways?

Because it costs too much.

[Tgo01]

Because it costs too much.

Freedom isn't free!

[Thondalar]

Why are people so concerned with money in campaigns anyways?

Because they think only the Republicans have multimillion-dollar superPACs.

[Androidpk]

Because they think only the Republicans have multimillion-dollar superPACs.

Duh, there are no (D) counterparts to the Koch brothers!

[Jeril]

Duh, there are no (D) counterparts to the Koch brothers!

They just have Bill Gates, what a nobody.

[waywardgs]

They just have Bill Gates, what a nobody.

It should tell you something when one billionaire designates his wealth to charitable causes and the other guys designate it to rigging a system that will make them more money.

[Tgo01]

It should tell you something when one billionaire designates his wealth to charitable causes and the other guys designate it to rigging a system that will make them more money.

Yeah cause no Republican billionaire gives money to charity :/

[waywardgs]

Yeah cause no Republican billionaire gives money to charity :/

All of it?

[Tgo01]

All of it?

Bill Gates hasn't given away his entire fortune, not even close.

[waywardgs]

It's all gone into a charitable trust.

[Frimpleton]

Chuck Feeney's getting pretty close! And the best part about him is that I have no idea if he's a democrat, or a republican, because he gave it away for the sake of good, not for the sake of politics.

[Tgo01]

It's all gone into a charitable trust.

Mmm hmm.

[waywardgs]

Mmm hmm.

I'll rephrase... it's all going to end up in the foundation.

[Tgo01]

I'll rephrase... it's all going to end up in the foundation.

By some non-binding promise like everyone else on "the pledge" or has Bill Gates actually put this in writing and made everything all nice and legal?

Man I can't wait for the cluster fuck if none of this is in writing when Bill dies.

[Warriorbird]

Chuck Feeney's getting pretty close! And the best part about him is that I have no idea if he's a democrat, or a republican, because he gave it away for the sake of good, not for the sake of politics.

His political donations are to encouraging IRA members to quit being terrorists and gay rights. He's a bit past our politics.

[JackWhisper]

His political donations are to encouraging IRA members to quit being terrorists and gay rights. He's a bit past our politics.

I tried to read that sentence and make it make sense. I think I missed something.

[Warriorbird]

I tried to read that sentence and make it make sense. I think I missed something.

I'm saying he's more involved in the politics of other countries than America, and a combination of what we would consider conservative/liberal causes in them. For his part here, he's strongly protested the Iraq War/the concept of the "War on Terror" and US tax policies.

[JackWhisper]

I'm saying he's more involved in the politics of other countries than America, and a combination of what we would consider conservative/liberal causes in them. For his part here, he's strongly protested the Iraq War/the concept of the "War on Terror" and US tax policies.

Oh, I figured it out after three minutes of staring at it. You wrote 'to' and you meant 'for'. Totally made sense after.

[Parkbandit]

It should tell you something when one billionaire designates his wealth to charitable causes and the other guys designate it to rigging a system that will make them more money.

What it tells me is that you lead a very narrow minded life with rose colored blinders on... where it's good vs. TEH KOCH BROTHERS OF EVIL!

[Kembal]

Why are people so concerned with money in campaigns anyways?

Donors get privileged access to candidates. If someone gives you a million dollars to support your campaign, you're going to listen to them, even if their views are opposed to a majority of the voters that elected you. That's why we have contribution limits to political campaigns. ($2,700 per person for the primary, and another $2,700 per person for the general election) SuperPACs dedicated to supporting one political candidate circumvent this limitation.

Edit: And yes, this happens in both parties.

[Parkbandit]

Donors get privileged access to candidates. If someone gives you a million dollars to support your campaign, you're going to listen to them, even if their views are opposed to a majority of the voters that elected you. That's why we have contribution limits to political campaigns. ($2,700 per person for the primary, and another $2,700 per person for the general election) SuperPACs dedicated to supporting one political candidate circumvent this limitation.

Edit: And yes, this happens in both parties.

The $5,400 per person is retarded, since there has always been ways around that.

And yes, both parties skirt that unenforceable "law" all the time.

[Tgo01]

Donors get privileged access to candidates. If someone gives you a million dollars to support your campaign, you're going to listen to them, even if their views are opposed to a majority of the voters that elected you. That's why we have contribution limits to political campaigns. ($2,700 per person for the primary, and another $2,700 per person for the general election) SuperPACs dedicated to supporting one political candidate circumvent this limitation.

Edit: And yes, this happens in both parties.

It would happen regardless. Even if there were someway to strictly enforce the limits (no more 10k dinners bullshit) they would still listen to the rich and powerful more than the average guy on the street because the rich can still make the person's life hell or comfortable, depending on what they want.

[Fallen]

It would happen regardless. Even if there were someway to strictly enforce the limits (no more 10k dinners bullshit) they would still listen to the rich and powerful more than the average guy on the street because the rich can still make the person's life hell or comfortable, depending on what they want.

Why make it easy and/or codify it?

[Tgo01]

Why make it easy and/or codify it?

I just don't view it as that big of a deal.

Look at the whole buying/selling things in GS with real life money debate.

People have two ways to acquire the gear they want:

Spend the time necessary to acquire said gear.
Buy said gear.

People with more money are willing to spend real life money to skip the time sink.

Likewise when it comes to politics every voter has the same goal; they want their candidate to win.

Rich Person A can choose to donate more of their money to achieve their goal whereas Poor Person A can choose to donate more of their time to achieve their goal.

Why is a rich guy donating 100k to their candidate viewed as bad yet poor guy volunteering 8 hours a day for 3 months straight campaigning for their candidate viewed as good?

[Fallen]

When I think of money in politics, I think of Sheldon Adelson practically auditioning the Republican candidates on stage.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-29/republican-presidential-hopefuls-in-vegas-to-woo-donor-adelson

I'm sure Parkbandit could also provide examples of a Lefty doing this to a similar degree, and I certainly wouldn't argue it doesn't happen.

I'm all for legislation that stops this sort of behavior from happening. I also don't think you can compare someone donating millions upon millions of dollars to someone donating their time to a campaign. Presidential candidates aren't going to flock in mass to Bob the Volunteer Campaign Worker's house to try to win his support. They certainly will do so to anyone who is willing to shell out millions.

There's no comparing a person donating a million dollars to another person working full time for a campaign. They're simply not equal.

[Tgo01]

There's no comparing a person donating a million dollars to another person working full time for a campaign. They're simply not equal.

Why not? Both are using resources available to them to ensure their candidate wins. Obama had legions of volunteers working to make sure he got elected...and reelected, I'm sure the numbers dwarfed McCain's volunteers by comparison. Why is this fair? Should there be a limit on the number of hours you can devote to campaigning for your candidate?

[Fallen]

Why not? Both are using resources available to them to ensure their candidate wins. Obama had legions of volunteers working to make sure he got elected...and reelected, I'm sure the numbers dwarfed McCain's volunteers by comparison. Why is this fair? Should there be a limit on the number of hours you can devote to campaigning for your candidate?

Well, for one, 1 person can only donate so much of their time. You cannot donate enough of your time to cancel out a high enough campaign contribution. You are in effect giving one person far more voice than another.

How many people does it take to cancel out Bill Maher's million dollar donation to Obama's Super PAC? I imagine you would agree that number is higher than 1 full-time volunteer, wouldn't you think?

For one person volunteering their time for 3 months (working all 24 hours of each day) to cancel out Maher's pledge, you would have to value their labor at approx $456.32 per hour.

[Tgo01]

Well, for one, 1 person can only donate so much of their time. You cannot donate enough of your time to cancel out a high enough campaign contribution. You are in effect giving one person far more voice than another.

How many people does it take to cancel out Bill Maher's million dollar donation to Obama's Super PAC? I imagine you would agree that number is higher than 1 full-time volunteer, wouldn't you think?

For one person volunteering their time for 3 months (working all 24 hours of each day) to cancel out Maher's pledge, you would have to value their labor at approx $456.32 per hour.

There are also probably more poor/middle class people willing to volunteer more of their time than there are rich people willing to volunteer their time. This is why I questioned whether we should limit how much time one can donate to someone's campaign. For every million dollars a single rich person donates there are probably thousands of man hours being donated to the same campaign.

[Latrinsorm]

A poor person doesn't make $1000 / hr. You would need several tens of thousands of man hours per million dollars for the comparison to hold.

[Fallen]

There are also probably more poor/middle class people willing to volunteer more of their time than there are rich people willing to volunteer their time. This is why I questioned whether we should limit how much time one can donate to someone's campaign. For every million dollars a single rich person donates there are probably thousands of man hours being donated to the same campaign.

Sure. I would be completely fine if they capped both the amount of hours you can volunteer to a campaign per person as well as the amount of money you can give to a candidate/PAC/etc.

[Tgo01]

A poor person doesn't make $1000 / hr. You would need several tens of thousands of man hours per million dollars for the comparison to hold.

If fast food workers get their way it will only take 66,666.666 man hours to equal the one million dollars.

Of course this is assuming every 15 dollars donated to the campaign is worth just as much as one person volunteering one hour of their time to said campaign. Are they equal? ARE THEY EQUAL?!

[waywardgs]

What it tells me is that you lead a very narrow minded life with rose colored blinders on... where it's good vs. TEH KOCH BROTHERS OF EVIL!

Rose colored blinders? You mean sunglasses? Or are my blinders sort of a pinkish red?

Or are you just sad that you've been snowed your entire life by people much, much smarter than you?

[waywardgs]

If fast food workers get their way it will only take 66,666.666 man hours to equal the one million dollars.

Of course this is assuming every 15 dollars donated to the campaign is worth just as much as one person volunteering one hour of their time to said campaign. Are they equal? ARE THEY EQUAL?!

...

I can't even.

[Gelston]

It's all gone into a charitable trust.

OH yeah, such an awesome dude. He'll have all the money he could ever need and when he dies it'll go into a charity so he won't be missing any of it.

[Tgo01]

...

I can't even.

Well? ARE THEY EQUAL?!

What helps more, someone going door to door shouting how great Candidate Yes is and standing on street corners encouraging them and helping them register to vote or some commercial on the television that no one is even going to watch? Seriously, who watches commercials anymore?

[waywardgs]

Well? ARE THEY EQUAL?!

What helps more, someone going door to door shouting how great Candidate Yes is and standing on street corners encouraging them and helping them register to vote or some commercial on the television that no one is even going to watch? Seriously, who watches commercials anymore?

You can buy a thousand people to go door to door for that money.

[waywardgs]

OH yeah, such an awesome dude. He'll have all the money he could ever need and when he dies it'll go into a charity so he won't be missing any of it.

Yeah, what a dick. It should go to his kids like true aristocracy.

[Tgo01]

You can buy a thousand people to go door to door for that money.

And if Candidate A manages to get thousands of people to do it for free is it wrong that Candidate B hires people to do it?

[waywardgs]

And if Candidate A manages to get thousands of people to do it for free is it wrong that Candidate B hires people to do it?

You can tell me the answer to that question. I'm certain you can.

[Gelston]

Yeah, what a dick. It should go to his kids like true aristocracy.

Actually, they only have 95% of their wealth promised. They have that other 5% for their kids. Which is still a shit ton of money.

(3.9b to split between their three kids.)

[Tgo01]

You can tell me the answer to that question. I'm certain you can.

The answer is no.

[waywardgs]

Actually, they only have 95% of their wealth promised. They have that other 5% for their kids. Which is still a shit ton of money.

10 mill to each, from what I understand. Nothing to shake a stick at, but not 100 billion. That's an enormous amount of charitable money that should be going to his children.

[waywardgs]

The answer is no.

The answer is you're a sucka.

[Gelston]

10 mill to each, from what I understand. Nothing to shake a stick at, but not 100 billion. That's an enormous amount of charitable money that should be going to his children.

Well, 5% of their total fortune is 3.9 billion. That isn't pledged to anything currently, but still, I imagine their children are making enough money on their own. Also, this money isn't until after their death. It isn't like they are bending over backwards here.

So, OMG they give so much money!!! I would too if I had billions of dollars and everything I could ever want.

[waywardgs]

Let's put it this way, TGO. Do you feel ok knowing that your vote is worth less because someone else can buy votes that make yours insignificant?

Assuming you're not a billionaire, that is. Which is a safe assumption.

[waywardgs]

Well, 5% of their total fortune is 3.9 billion. That isn't pledged to anything currently, but still, I imagine their children are making enough money on their own. Also, this money isn't until after their death. It isn't like they are bending over backwards here.

You're right. They should get it all, dammit. It's just not fair! Stupid 95 billion dollar charity!

[Gelston]

Let's put it this way, TGO. Do you feel ok knowing that your vote is worth less because someone else can buy votes that make yours insignificant?

Assuming you're not a billionaire, that is. Which is a safe assumption.

TGO is a trillionaire.

[Gelston]

You're right. They should get it all, dammit. It's just not fair! Stupid 95 billion dollar charity!

Where am I saying they should get it all? I'm saying Bill Gates isn't suffering and it really isn't as "noble" as you keep saying it is.

[Wesley]

I don't want to brag or anything, but I'm a billionaire. It's just that...the type of billionaire I am, it's the kind where I don't really have very much money at all, or stuff. So basically I'm a billionaire. Just without money or stuff.

[waywardgs]

Where am I saying they should get it all? I'm saying Bill Gates isn't suffering and it really isn't as "noble" as you keep saying it is.

Actually I'm not saying it's "Noble." I'm saying it's an enormous amount of money that they don't need, they will never be able to spend, and are giving away. It should be fucking status quo.

[waywardgs]

TGO is a trillionaire.

He's a chamillionaire.

[Tgo01]

Let's put it this way, TGO. Do you feel ok knowing that your vote is worth less because someone else can buy votes that make yours insignificant?

Assuming you're not a billionaire, that is. Which is a safe assumption.

People are literally buying votes? I agree, that is unfair.

[JackWhisper]

I don't want to brag or anything, but I'm a billionaire. It's just that...the type of billionaire I am, it's the kind where I don't really have very much money at all, or stuff. So basically I'm a billionaire. Just without money or stuff.

The chick in your avatar has a rather large, and obscenely shiny, forehead.

[drauz]

Where am I saying they should get it all? I'm saying Bill Gates isn't suffering and it really isn't as "noble" as you keep saying it is.

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=98279

[Parkbandit]

Rose colored blinders? You mean sunglasses? Or are my blinders sort of a pinkish red?

No, I meant blinders.. you only see what you have been pointed at seeing.. and don't have the sense to even know you're being led by a bridle.


Or are you just sad that you've been snowed your entire life by people much, much smarter than you?

Irony.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, what a dick. It should go to his kids like true aristocracy.

You clearly have no idea how a foundation works. The Clinton Foundation is a prime example of how it "works for charity" when only $.15 of every dollar goes to "charity".

Their kids will be very well taken care of for the rest of their lives. And their kids.. And their kids...

[Fallen]

Gates only gave away 100 billion so far? Psssh. What a dick.

[Parkbandit]

Gates only gave away 100 billion so far? Psssh. What a dick.

If giving away money is what you judge a person on, you must be a huge Koch Brothers fan.

[Fallen]

If giving away money is what you judge a person on, you must be a huge Koch Brothers fan.

I honestly can't wrap my mind around this attempt to belittle Bill Gate's charitable efforts.

[Parkbandit]

I honestly can't wrap my mind around this attempt to belittle Bill Gate's charitable efforts.

That's not surprising. It's using the same mind that also attempts to belittle the Koch Brothers charitable efforts.

It's basically like using half a brain.

[Kembal]

Well? ARE THEY EQUAL?!

What helps more, someone going door to door shouting how great Candidate Yes is and standing on street corners encouraging them and helping them register to vote or some commercial on the television that no one is even going to watch? Seriously, who watches commercials anymore?

TV commercials are still the most effective messaging medium a campaign has to reach undecided voters, by far.

And no, volunteering for a candidate holds no candle to a major donor in terms of influence and access.

I'll give a personal example, though I'm going to redact as much information as possible to protect my privacy.

I've supported a certain Congressional Representative ever since said Representative's initial run for office. They were a long shot in the primary, but I backed them from the beginning and introduced them to other donors. They won the primary, won the general, and have won re-election. I've hosted 3 fundraisers at either my home or a relative's house for them, and have donated the maximum amount of money to their campaign. Said representative is eyeing a run at higher office or going up higher in the House leadership in their party, and has now established a "Finance Committee" (read: top donors becoming bundlers for the campaign and their leadership PAC). I've been invited to join that committee and become a bundler. (I haven't decided whether I'm going to do so.)

What have I gotten for this? I've had multiple personal conversations with this representative, one for over an hour, and have gotten to express my views to them on a number of subjects. On top of that, their Chief of Staff knows me on a first name basis, as well as two of their top-level campaign staff members.

I've gotten all of that for being responsible for about $50k to $60k in contributions to their campaign (about $10k from my own pocket).

So capping a volunteer's time is pointless. A volunteer will never get that level of access. A major donor will. Increase the sum of money that is donated, and the donor's level of influence will grow in proportion.

[Latrinsorm]

If I've cracked the code correctly, Kembal is personal friends with Netanyahu??

[Kembal]

If I've cracked the code correctly, Kembal is personal friends with Netanyahu??

LOL, no. Unless Netanyahu is the secret 536th member of Congress.

[Tgo01]

TV commercials are still the most effective messaging medium a campaign has to reach undecided voters, by far.

And no, volunteering for a candidate holds no candle to a major donor in terms of influence and access.

I'll give a personal example, though I'm going to redact as much information as possible to protect my privacy.

I've supported a certain Congressional Representative ever since said Representative's initial run for office. They were a long shot in the primary, but I backed them from the beginning and introduced them to other donors. They won the primary, won the general, and have won re-election. I've hosted 3 fundraisers at either my home or a relative's house for them, and have donated the maximum amount of money to their campaign. Said representative is eyeing a run at higher office or going up higher in the House leadership in their party, and has now established a "Finance Committee" (read: top donors becoming bundlers for the campaign and their leadership PAC). I've been invited to join that committee and become a bundler. (I haven't decided whether I'm going to do so.)

What have I gotten for this? I've had multiple personal conversations with this representative, one for over an hour, and have gotten to express my views to them on a number of subjects. On top of that, their Chief of Staff knows me on a first name basis, as well as two of their top-level campaign staff members.

I've gotten all of that for being responsible for about $50k to $60k in contributions to their campaign (about $10k from my own pocket).

So capping a volunteer's time is pointless. A volunteer will never get that level of access. A major donor will. Increase the sum of money that is donated, and the donor's level of influence will grow in proportion.

This is what I don't understand; who cares? Do you think you are personally writing legislation or something? Like, did you sway this unknown person's opinion on something because you had a conversation with them about your views? I'm sure this person wants you to think this so you will continue to bring in money to their campaign.

Here's the other thing, do you really think the truly rich and powerful are going to be deterred by any sort of donation caps?

I also think it's quite telling for someone to be for monetary campaign limits but has no problem with an unlimited number of people donating an unlimited amount of their time to said campaign.

[Warriorbird]

This is what I don't understand; who cares?

We all clearly do or we wouldn't post about it.

[Tgo01]

We all clearly do or we wouldn't post about it.

I guess I should say: why does it matter?

If there are clear quid pro quos going on, like Obama appointing top donors to be ambassadors (which funnily enough no one in this thread has complained about) then that's one thing, but we are concerned because candidates have talks and meetings with top donors? Of course they do. Do only poor voters have a say or something? If a candidate talks to a rich person it automatically means that candidate is bought and paid for?

[Fallen]

That's not surprising. It's using the same mind that also attempts to belittle the Koch Brothers charitable efforts.

It's basically like using half a brain.

http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/Koch-Brothers-Philanthropy-Reid/2014/03/21/id/560986/

This appears to sum up their charitable contributions in about as favorable a light as is possible. I applaud their efforts on this front.

How does that make their donations to political campaigns any more palatable? How does this make what Bill Gate has accomplished with his charitable efforts in any way less meaningful?

[Kembal]

This is what I don't understand; who cares? Do you think you are personally writing legislation or something? Like, did you sway this unknown person's opinion on something because you had a conversation with them about your views? I'm sure this person wants you to think this so you will continue to bring in money to their campaign.

I won't pick any specific example from what I've done. (none of it was legislation.) I will pick something that my business competitors have done, because I can point to it easily and because it is actual writing of legislation.

The FY 2014 omnibus appropriations legislation had a new rule stuck in there requiring certain types of products used in the building of water treatment plants and underground water distribution lines to be made only in the U.S., if the projects received any federal funding. This would increase the cost of those products by about 50%. The list of products happened to be specifically limited to the products produced by the various divisions of a company called McWane. Some of these products have domestic competition, others do not or only have limited competition. Other types of products used in water treatment plants or underground water distribution lines that were not produced by McWane could still be made overseas. The amendment to the legislation was made by Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL). Edit: This affected rules governing about $4 billion in federal spending, though I'm not certain about the exact percentage of that amount that would be devoted to these products.

McWane executives donated $18,600 to his campaign from 2011 to 2013. Prior to that, they had not donated to his campaign since the year 2000.


Here's the other thing, do you really think the truly rich and powerful are going to be deterred by any sort of donation caps?

Yes, because they wouldn't file lawsuits to strike them down otherwise. See McCutcheon vs. FEC.


I also think it's quite telling for someone to be for monetary campaign limits but has no problem with an unlimited number of people donating an unlimited amount of their time to said campaign.

What exactly does this tell you?

[Tgo01]

I won't pick any specific example from what I've done. (none of it was legislation.) I will pick something that my business competitors have done, because I can point to it easily and because it is actual writing of legislation.

The FY 2014 omnibus appropriations legislation had a new rule stuck in there requiring certain types of products used in the building of water treatment plants and underground water distribution lines to be made only in the U.S., if the projects received any federal funding. This would increase the cost of those products by about 50%. The list of products happened to be specifically limited to the products produced by the various divisions of a company called McWane. Some of these products have domestic competition, others do not or only have limited competition. Other types of products used in water treatment plants or underground water distribution lines that were not produced by McWane could still be made overseas. The amendment to the legislation was made by Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL). Edit: This affected rules governing about $4 billion in federal spending, though I'm not certain about the exact percentage of that amount that would be devoted to these products.

McWane executives donated $18,600 to his campaign from 2011 to 2013. Prior to that, they had not donated to his campaign since the year 2000.

18,600 dollars over a course of two years bought them this nice piece of legislation yet your 50-60k (10k out of your own pocket) in donations only got you a meeting? You got played, son.


Yes, because they wouldn't file lawsuits to strike them down otherwise. See McCutcheon vs. FEC.

To live in Naive Ville.


What exactly does this tell you?

Tells me that I'm right and you're wrong. Neener neener!

[Parkbandit]

What causes have the Koch brothers given to and in what amounts? You've still yet to explain why you feel Bill Gates efforts aren't laudable.

You realize you can look this information up... just use google.

And you've yet to explain why you feel the Koch Brothers giving to charity is somehow bad, but Bill Gates giving to charity deserves a national holiday named in his honor.

[Fallen]

You realize you can look this information up... just use google.

And you've yet to explain why you feel the Koch Brothers giving to charity is somehow bad, but Bill Gates giving to charity deserves a national holiday named in his honor.

That's because I didn't mention the Koch brothers until you did?

See my edited post. I was unable to look it up at the time.

Some points we could possibly be able to agree upon:

1. Bill Gates has given a massive amount (approx 100 billion) of money to charity. This is a good thing.

2. The Koch Brothers have also given a large amount (1 - 1.5 billion) to charity. This is also a good thing.

3. Rich individuals have given massive amounts of money in an attempt to influence the outcomes of campaigns, on the left and the right. This is not a good thing.

[Tgo01]

I think it's awesome that Bill Gates donates a lot to charity. I just didn't like the implication that rich people can't be considered generous unless they promise to give away their entire wealth after they are dead.

[Fallen]

I think it's awesome that Bill Gates donates a lot to charity. I just didn't like the implication that rich people can't be considered generous unless they promise to give away their entire wealth after they are dead.

I wouldn't subscribe to that idea either. I do think that those rich people who choose to give away large portions of their wealth should be recognized in a favorable light for doing so, though.

[Parkbandit]

That's because I didn't mention the Koch brothers until you did?

You equated Gates giving to him being somehow a good person. I stated that you must feel the same about the Koch Brothers, since they too have set up foundations for charity. You declined to give them the same kudos.


See my edited post. I was unable to look it up at the time.

Some points we could possibly be able to agree upon:

1. Bill Gates has given a massive amount (approx 100 billion) of money to charity. This is a good thing.

2. The Koch Brothers have also given a large amount (1 - 1.5 billion) to charity. This is also a good thing.


Where did you get that 100 billion mark from? I show 28 billion as of May 2013.

But, I think if you measure a person's "wealth" by their charitable giving, then Bill Gates and The Koch brothers are very generous citizens... right?


3. Rich individuals have given massive amounts of money in an attempt to influence the outcomes of campaigns, on the left and the right. This is not a good thing.

Give me an alternative that can't be abused like it has been in the past and we can talk. I don't agree that unions should be able to give unlimited amounts of money to political candidates while corporations are restricted.

[Fallen]

You equated Gates giving to him being somehow a good person. I stated that you must feel the same about the Koch Brothers, since they too have set up foundations for charity. You declined to give them the same kudos.

I have since rectified my lack of immediate praise for the Koch Brothers.




Where did you get that 100 billion mark from? I show 28 billion as of May 2013.

Someone in this thread posted a video where that figure was used.


But, I think if you measure a person's "wealth" by their charitable giving, then Bill Gates and The Koch brothers are very generous citizens... right?

Correct. I still do not support the Koch brothers giving millions upon millions to influence campaigns, however. As this apparently must be stated to avoid confusion, I would not approve with Bill Gates doing this either.



Give me an alternative that can't be abused like it has been in the past and we can talk. I don't agree that unions should be able to give unlimited amounts of money to political candidates while corporations are restricted.

I do not believe the solution to a partially flawed system is the lack of any at all. However, I have not yet written legislation that would effectively enforce campaign finance reform. If/when I do, I will be sure to submit it for your perusal.

[Latrinsorm]

Give me an alternative that can't be abused like it has been in the past and we can talk. I don't agree that unions should be able to give unlimited amounts of money to political candidates while corporations are restricted.Would it interest you to learn that McCain-Feingold restricted both corporations AND unions?

[Parkbandit]

I have since rectified my lack of immediate praise for the Koch Brothers.

Your initial post was far more enlightening on your "thinking".

Bill Gates = Great

Koch Brothers = Evil



Someone in this thread posted a video where that figure was used.

I haven't seen anything to back up that claim. Seems greatly exaggerated.


Correct. I still do not support the Koch brothers giving millions upon millions to influence campaigns, however. As this apparently must be stated to avoid confusion, I would not approve with Bill Gates doing this either.

The reason you do not support the Koch brothers giving millions upon millions to influence campaigns is because you don't agree with who they are giving the money to. I've never heard you mention how you don't agree with people like Eychaner, Soros, Steyer, Simons or Bloomberg.. but that's because they give mainly to people you do agree with.


I do not believe the solution to a partially flawed system is the lack of any at all. However, I have not yet written legislation that would effectively enforce campaign finance reform. If/when I do, I will be sure to submit it for your perusal.

I didn't ask you to write legislation.. I asked you for an opinion for a better solution that the one we currently have.

[Fallen]

Your initial post was far more enlightening on your "thinking".

Bill Gates = Great

Koch Brothers = Evil


I wasn't aware of their charitable causes. Once I was, I affirmed that they were worthwhile. Again, you brought up the Koch brothers, not me.


The reason you do not support the Koch brothers giving millions upon millions to influence campaigns is because you don't agree with who they are giving the money to.

What? "As this apparently must be stated to avoid confusion, I would not approve with Bill Gates doing this either."


I've never heard you mention how you don't agree with people like Eychaner, Soros, Steyer, Simons or Bloomberg.. but that's because they give mainly to people you do agree with.

Good lord. "As this apparently must be stated to avoid confusion, I would not approve with Bill Gates doing this either."

You can apply this to anyone. I do not agree with rich individuals giving large quantities of money for the purpose of influencing politicians. I even included Bill Maher in one of the examples I made earlier in the thread. He's about as left as you can get.




I didn't ask you to write legislation.. I asked you for an opinion for a better solution that the one we currently have.

Alright. I'll take a stab at it.

1. A limit imposed on direct campaign contribution per-candidate for private citizens. Lets say 10k, but that's subject to debate.

2. An overall limit on the amount a person can give per-year on overall political campaigns. This amount also applies to political action committees, and other organizations of their like.

3. Corporations, Unions, Interest groups, etc will be subject to limitations along the lines of 1 and 2. The caps can be subject to debate, but we're looking at tens to hundreds of thousands, not millions.

4. Any fundraising activities done by campaigns, either on an individual basis, a party basis, or Super PAC are still subject to the individual and group donation caps. Meaning you cannot pay 10,000 per-plate after you've already hit your cap of political contributions for the year.

5. All campaign contributions must be itemized by political organization or person receiving it. PACS and other such organizations are also subject to this policy.

6. Similar to Great Britain, there is a limit on the time one can actively begin campaigning for an election. I would set the limit at 6 months (as opposed to Britain's 1), but the exact time frame can be debated.

An issue that remains in the amount of money a person can personally spend on their own campaign. I admit I don't have a good idea how we can limit that amount, but I imagine other countries have attempted solutions to that problem. I would also add something about itemizing any goods or services provided to a campaign, it's staff, and it's infrastructure/travel by private citizens or organizations, and having this amount of money also count towards their cap.

[Kembal]

18,600 dollars over a course of two years bought them this nice piece of legislation yet your 50-60k (10k out of your own pocket) in donations only got you a meeting? You got played, son.

Who said I only got a meeting? I just didn't request any legislation. I'm not providing examples of what I did get done, because then you'll be able to identify the Representative.


To live in Naive Ville.

Tells me that I'm right and you're wrong. Neener neener!

Right, no answer, as usual.

[Warriorbird]

Who said I only got a meeting? I just didn't request any legislation. I'm not providing examples of what I did get done, because then you'll be able to identify the Representative.

Well, even if you're not nailing our local tax dodger, good on you, hey!

[Tgo01]

Who said I only got a meeting? I just didn't request any legislation. I'm not providing examples of what I did get done, because then you'll be able to identify the Representative.

What else is the bribed representative going to do for you? You don't have to tell us what you supposedly got done, just curious what else 10k can get me if it can get that one guy a multi billion dollar contract written into law.



Right, no answer, as usual.

So you really think the only way a rich person can help or hurt a politician is through direct donations?

This is especially funny since I'm pretty sure a private citizen using their own funds can make whatever ad they want.

[~Rocktar~]

Limit all campaign contributions to individuals who can vote in the election.

If a corporation is a person in the eyes of the court, then they should be limited to the same individual donation limit that other individuals are.

Define any support, gift, or involvement in the political process in any way including but not limited to cash, assets, use of facilities, ancillary activities and so on as a contribution. None of this "we won't donate but will allow you to speak before a party we are throwing in our sports stadium where we provide food and drinks to all our approved guests" crap. No free airtime, no free flights and so on.

Limit individual contributions to verifiable voters on public record with all donations required to be made public, no annon or unverified donations.

Unions are neither people or corporations (unless specifically incorporated as such) and so since they cannot vote and are not individuals, they cannot contribute.

Simple. Fair. Never going to happen.

[Warriorbird]

Limit all campaign contributions to individuals who can vote in the election.

If a corporation is a person in the eyes of the court, then they should be limited to the same individual donation limit that other individuals are.

Define any support, gift, or involvement in the political process in any way including but not limited to cash, assets, use of facilities, ancillary activities and so on as a contribution. None of this "we won't donate but will allow you to speak before a party we are throwing in our sports stadium where we provide food and drinks to all our approved guests" crap. No free airtime, no free flights and so on.

Limit individual contributions to verifiable voters on public record with all donations required to be made public, no annon or unverified donations.

Unions are neither people or corporations (unless specifically incorporated as such) and so since they cannot vote and are not individuals, they cannot contribute.

Simple. Fair. Never going to happen.

It's a bad sign when Rocktar and I pretty much see eye to eye on something. Then again, McCain/Feingold was a bipartisan effort.

[Fallen]

It's a bad sign when Rocktar and I pretty much see eye to eye on something. Then again, McCain/Feingold was a bipartisan effort.

Strange days indeed.

[waywardgs]

Publically funded campaigns. No more donations.

[Tgo01]

Publically funded campaigns. No more donations.

Can I take out an ad in my local newspaper using my own money?

[waywardgs]

Can I take out an ad in my local newspaper using my own money?

Yep. You can now. But you have to be associated with it, not the candidate.

[Tgo01]

Yep. You can now. But you have to be associated with it, not the candidate.

What if my message is so powerful (because let's face it, it would be) that people all around the country want to pay to have my ad printed in their local newspaper?

[waywardgs]

What if my message is so powerful (because let's face it, it would be) that people all around the country want to pay to have my ad printed in their local newspaper?

This isn't a campaign finance issue.

[Tgo01]

This isn't a campaign finance issue.

What if people liked my message so much they wanted to use their money to ensure as many people as possible saw it; newspapers, TV commercials, billboards, whatever! So they decide it would be better to pool all the money into one large pot and someone could decide how best to use that money to make sure the entire world saw my message.

We could even call this a group of some sort, perhaps a People Across the Country group, but y'know, PAC for short.

[waywardgs]

Yeah yeah I get it. This is a separate issue.

[Tgo01]

Yeah yeah I get it. This is a separate issue.

But this whole thread was about PACs and I just described them...

[drauz]

This is what I don't understand; who cares? Do you think you are personally writing legislation or something? Like, did you sway this unknown person's opinion on something because you had a conversation with them about your views? I'm sure this person wants you to think this so you will continue to bring in money to their campaign.

Here's the other thing, do you really think the truly rich and powerful are going to be deterred by any sort of donation caps?

I also think it's quite telling for someone to be for monetary campaign limits but has no problem with an unlimited number of people donating an unlimited amount of their time to said campaign.

Pretty sure the big banks actually write legislation for the politicians they have bought for them to introduce.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/banks-lobbyists-help-in-drafting-financial-bills/

[Kembal]

What else is the bribed representative going to do for you? You don't have to tell us what you supposedly got done, just curious what else 10k can get me if it can get that one guy a multi billion dollar contract written into law.

First off, I'm sure McWane executives held fundraisers for Rep. Aderholt as well, so in the end, it was more than the $18,600 I can identify from searching campaign contribution records.

But a partial list of things you can have a Congressman do
- Hold a hearing (if they're placed high enough) that is beneficial to your interests
- Suggest witnesses for a hearing that'll support your interests
- Attack a witness whose testimony at a hearing is detrimental to your interests
- Read a statement into the Congressional Record that supports your interests
- Intervene with a federal agency on your behalf (that one can be illegal if not done properly...see Sen. Menendez (D-NJ))
- Write a letter to a federal agency expressing concern or support about a topic that's part of your interests
- Agree to go on a trip to a foreign country where you have interests
- Issue press statements that support your interests

None of these have to be business or money related interests. They could be ideological, on behalf of a community, solving a personal problem, etc.

The point is that the donation greases the wheels. And the bigger the donor (and their donation), the more grease that gets applied.


So you really think the only way a rich person can help or hurt a politician is through direct donations?

This is especially funny since I'm pretty sure a private citizen using their own funds can make whatever ad they want.

That's why they create SuperPACs to spread their message. (See Koch Brothers, Tom Steyer, etc.) Private citizen doing it on their own is making an in-kind contribution to the campaign, and the campaign is held liable if said private citizen has gone over the donation limit. With a SuperPAC, that's not an issue.

[Tgo01]

But a partial list of things you can have a Congressman do
- Hold a hearing (if they're placed high enough) that is beneficial to your interests
- Suggest witnesses for a hearing that'll support your interests
- Attack a witness whose testimony at a hearing is detrimental to your interests
- Read a statement into the Congressional Record that supports your interests
- Write a letter to a federal agency expressing concern or support about a topic that's part of your interests
- Agree to go on a trip to a foreign country where you have interests
- Issue press statements that support your interests

None of these have to be business or money related interests. They could be ideological, on behalf of a community, solving a personal problem, etc.

You mean they will...GASP!...represent you as a citizen?!

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/288/5/b/mother_of_god_by_rober_raik-d4cw2di.png


With a SuperPAC, that's not an issue.

Did you read the back and forth I had with waywardgs? What exactly is wrong with PACs? I mean, I get what you have a problem with it...but why can't someone spend their money the way they want to? Are we really going to tell people they can no longer speak their mind come election time? Or is it gonna be all the time? Is no one ever gonna be allowed to spend their money to speak out for or against a politician?

[Kembal]

You mean they will...GASP!...represent you as a citizen?!

Tell you what...try and get a Congressman to do most of that without giving donations to them. Doesn't happen unless it's a normal constituent service. (attacking a witness at a hearing? Reading stuff into the Congressional Record? not normal constituent services)


Did you read the back and forth I had with waywardgs? What exactly is wrong with PACs? I mean, I get what you have a problem with it...but why can't someone spend their money the way they want to? Are we really going to tell people they can no longer speak their mind come election time? Or is it gonna be all the time? Is no one ever gonna be allowed to spend their money to speak out for or against a politician?

A standard PAC is fine. I don't have a problem with those. They have contribution limits to them, and contribution limits on what they can provide a campaign.

A SuperPAC has two different problems:

1. No contribution limits, which allows wealthy individuals to put in millions of dollars that less wealthy individuals cannot. (a wealthy person's speech is not inherently more valuable than a poor person's speech)

2. The ban on coordination with campaigns can be easily evaded. (what Jeb Bush is doing now, for example)

I was fine with the McCain-Feingold setup, except I would force presidential campaigns to take the matching funds and be subject to the spending limits. (I didn't like Obama opting out of that.)

[waywardgs]

More money equals more representation. Simple as that. And it's not ok.

It's funny to me, and sad, that anyone would be ok with that.

[Wrathbringer]

More money equals more representation. Simple as that. And it's not ok.

It's funny to me, and sad, that anyone would be ok with that.

Except for possibly those with more money, you mean.

[Tgo01]

Tell you what...try and get a Congressman to do most of that without giving donations to them. Doesn't happen unless it's a normal constituent service. (attacking a witness at a hearing? Reading stuff into the Congressional Record? not normal constituent services)

So a Congressperson never represents a person unless they receive direct contributions? Ever? Tell me more.


A standard PAC is fine. I don't have a problem with those. They have contribution limits to them, and contribution limits on what they can provide a campaign.

SuperPACs can't contribute to campaigns at all as opposed to regular PACs.


1. No contribution limits, which allows wealthy individuals to put in millions of dollars that less wealthy individuals cannot. (a wealthy person's speech is not inherently more valuable than a poor person's speech)

So if I wanted to spend my money on billboards and TV commercials and radio commercials to let the world know how horrible Obama is you have no problem with that, but as soon as I give the money to a SuperPAC all of a sudden it's a problem? Care to explain the difference to me?


2. The ban on coordination with campaigns can be easily evaded. (what Jeb Bush is doing now, for example)

"Easily evaded"? SuperPACs are barred from coordinating directly with campaigns, unlike PACs. How is it (legally) "easier" for a SuperPAC to coordinate with a campaign compared to a regular PAC?

[Parkbandit]

More money equals more representation. Simple as that. And it's not ok.

It's funny to me, and sad, that anyone would be ok with that.

When we get to the point of Star Trek Universe where money is no longer used... we won't have this issue. But it's always been that way since we have used currency.

People with money always will have a larger voice if they so choose. Same can be said with people who are famous vs. people who are not.

[Tgo01]

People with money always will have a larger voice if they so choose. Same can be said with people who are famous vs. people who are not.

Next we have to start regulating how famous a person is! Al Sharpton owes the government millions of dollars yet he still gets invited to the White House on a regular basis, clearly his "star power" is what grants him a personal audience.

[waywardgs]

When we get to the point of Star Trek Universe where money is no longer used... we won't have this issue. But it's always been that way since we have used currency.

People with money always will have a larger voice if they so choose. Same can be said with people who are famous vs. people who are not.

And we as Americans should strive for better. This country wasn't built by people who shrugged their shoulders and said "oh well, it's not gonna get any better."

[Parkbandit]

And we as Americans should strive for better.

It's like you are disconnected from reality.

Like a Backlash type disconnection.

Until we no longer view people as famous.. or no longer require a currency, it will always be like that.


This country wasn't built by people who shrugged their shoulders and said "oh well, it's not gonna get any better."

It wasn't built by people sitting around, wishing they could change human nature and basic economics either.

[waywardgs]

It's like you are disconnected from reality.

Like a Backlash type disconnection.

Until we no longer view people as famous.. or no longer require a currency, it will always be like that.



It wasn't built by people sitting around, wishing they could change human nature and basic economics either.

Emo PB strikes again.

[Parkbandit]

Emo PB strikes again.

Dude, the only one being emo here is you.

I'm being realistic.. you are on Fantasy Island again.

[waywardgs]

"Life is nothing but pain, nothing will ever get any better, the only truth is death."

Cry more you fucking pussy.

[Androidpk]

"Life is nothing but pain, nothing will ever get any better, the only truth is death."

Cry more you fucking pussy.

Sounds like something Rustin Cohle would say.

[Tgo01]

Isn't there already limits to how much you can contribute to a politician's campaign? Isn't it a relatively low number, like 2500 dollars a year?

Just get a group of friends together and you too can own a politician!

So whats the plan, no direct contributions at all so this all happens under the radar instead of out in the open where everyone can see what's happening?

[Kembal]

So a Congressperson never represents a person unless they receive direct contributions? Ever? Tell me more.

You've committed a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. Try again.


SuperPACs can't contribute to campaigns at all as opposed to regular PACs.

That's correct. They can do independent expenditures in support of a candidate though, and that amounts to the same thing.


So if I wanted to spend my money on billboards and TV commercials and radio commercials to let the world know how horrible Obama is you have no problem with that, but as soon as I give the money to a SuperPAC all of a sudden it's a problem? Care to explain the difference to me?

That actually would be non-problematic in either scenario.


"Easily evaded"? SuperPACs are barred from coordinating directly with campaigns, unlike PACs. How is it (legally) "easier" for a SuperPAC to coordinate with a campaign compared to a regular PAC?

Why don't you read up on what Jeb Bush is doing with his SuperPAC? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/upshot/super-pacs-gobbling-up-even-more-power-jeb-bush-edition.html?ref=politics

Also, I think you may want to familiarize yourself with the word "evaded".

[Tgo01]

You've committed a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. Try again.

Okay so congresspeople do provide representation to those who don't donate to their campaigns. You've just committed stupid stupido stupidodio fallacy.


That's correct. They can do independent expenditures in support of a candidate though, and that amounts to the same thing.

It's actually not the same thing but okay.


That actually would be non-problematic in either scenario.

So...what's your beef with SuperPACs then if you don't view what I just described as a problem?


Why don't you read up on what Jeb Bush is doing with his SuperPAC? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/upshot/super-pacs-gobbling-up-even-more-power-jeb-bush-edition.html?ref=politics

From your very own article:


Having a super PAC handle more traditional campaign activities has risks, given that federal election rules forbid official coordination between a candidate and a committee. But the idea has benefits, too: It can free up large amounts of time spent raising money from individual donors.

So, like, what the fuck are you talking about? Because it seems to me you're talking in circles.


Also, I think you may want to familiarize yourself with the word "evaded".

You might want to familiarize yourself with keeping your arguments straight. You say you have no problem with PACs but do have problems with SuperPACs because they:

A) Have contribution limits yet you just got finished saying you wouldn't mind someone wanted to donate their money to a SuperPAC.
B) The "ban on coordination with campaigns can be easily evaded" yet PACs don't even have such a ban at all. In fact PACs can contribute directly to a candidate.

[Parkbandit]

"Life is nothing but pain, nothing will ever get any better, the only truth is death."

Cry more you fucking pussy.

"We need to strive to be better than that... something we can all be more proud of!"

Cry more you fucking faggot.

[Fallen]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/ULyYV5amK2eYM/200_s.gif

[Parkbandit]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/ULyYV5amK2eYM/200_s.gif


That often happens when one person in a discussion doesn't want to talk about reality... only his feelings of how things SHOULD be according to him. Because life is unfair and it shouldn't be. :cry:

[tyrant-201]

7383

[Latrinsorm]

You've just committed stupid stupido stupidodio fallacy.Rookie mistake, Terrence. Any high school debate team member knows that upon invoking the stupid stupido stupidodio fallacy you are required to give your opponent five minutes or until triple dog dare to respond, whichever comes first.

[waywardgs]

"We need to strive to be better than that... something we can all be more proud of!"

Cry more you fucking faggot.

Like shooting fish in a barrel. :)

[Parkbandit]

Like shooting fish in a barrel. :)

"I was just kidding around" probably was more effective when you were 5.

[Kembal]

Okay so congresspeople do provide representation to those who don't donate to their campaigns. You've just committed stupid stupido stupidodio fallacy.

<sigh> Representation of constituents in the district, like having put in an inquiry to an agency in regards to a visa application for a relative, is normal. Pushing an agency to grant your out-of-state friend's 20-something year old girlfriends special visas to come to the US? Not normal. (that's what Sen. Menendez did.)


It's actually not the same thing but okay.

Only if you're naive would you believe this. SuperPACs that are dedicated to supporting one candidate are essentially making expenditures on the candidates behalf.


So...what's your beef with SuperPACs then if you don't view what I just described as a problem?

SuperPACs that are dedicated to supporting one candidate.


From your very own article:



So, like, what the fuck are you talking about? Because it seems to me you're talking in circles.

No one actually believes that the restriction is actually being adhered to. Here's why:

1. The FEC is deadlocked and is barely sanctioning anybody. DOJ has no jurisdiction on this.
2. Candidates are putting their top strategists in charge of their SuperPACs instead of in their campaigns.
3. Instead of declaring his candidacy, Jeb Bush is out raising money for the SuperPAC. If he had declared his candidacy, he'd be banned from doing so. He knows exactly who's giving him millions of dollars right now. I believe a couple of the other planned Republican candidates are doing the same thing. (Scott Walker, for sure)
4. Stories like this: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/17/politics/twitter-republicans-outside-groups/ And yes, the Dems did this as well.



You might want to familiarize yourself with keeping your arguments straight. You say you have no problem with PACs but do have problems with SuperPACs because they:

A) Have contribution limits yet you just got finished saying you wouldn't mind someone wanted to donate their money to a SuperPAC.
B) The "ban on coordination with campaigns can be easily evaded" yet PACs don't even have such a ban at all. In fact PACs can contribute directly to a candidate.

No kidding. A PAC can give a total of $10k (5k in the general, and 5k for a primary) to a campaign, and that's assuming they've gotten 50 or more donors and contributed to 5 or more candidates. (if they haven't met those levels, they're limited to $2,700 per election) That's chump change for a presidential run when a SuperPAC can spend million of dollars on a candidate's behalf.

[Tgo01]

<sigh> Representation of constituents in the district, like having put in an inquiry to an agency in regards to a visa application for a relative, is normal. Pushing an agency to grant your out-of-state friend's 20-something year old girlfriends special visas to come to the US? Not normal. (that's what Sen. Menendez did.)

So before we get into another fallacy argument, by "not normal" are you saying "never happens unless you donate money to their campaign" or just "not likely to happen unless you donate money to their campaign"?


SuperPACs that are dedicated to supporting one candidate are essentially making expenditures on the candidates behalf.

They really aren't but okay...


SuperPACs that are dedicated to supporting one candidate.

...why does that matter in the slightest bit? So you have no problem with a SuperPAC that endorse the entire Republican party or tries to get multiple senators elected?


No one actually believes that the restriction is actually being adhered to. Here's why:

No one believes that? NO ONE? Well it's kind of hard to argue when you're speaking for everyone so I guess I'll cede this point to you.


No kidding. A PAC can give a total of $10k (5k in the general, and 5k for a primary) to a campaign, and that's assuming they've gotten 50 or more donors and contributed to 5 or more candidates. (if they haven't met those levels, they're limited to $2,700 per election) That's chump change for a presidential run when a SuperPAC can spend million of dollars on a candidate's behalf.

And what if I wanted to spend my entire life savings, 3.2 million dollars, on making sure Hilary never gets elected? Should I not be allowed to spend my money how I see fit? Am I going to have to keep receipts of how much money I spent and on what and report it to the IRS so they can make sure I don't go over the limit? Are you saying the government should get in the habit of telling me how and when I express my freedom of speech? The government is going to tell me whether or not I can run an ad on the radio or if I can spend money on a billboard?

[waywardgs]

"I was just kidding around" probably was more effective when you were 5.

We go through this constantly. You take the bait every time. It's highly amusing to me. :)

[Parkbandit]

We go through this constantly. You take the bait every time. It's highly amusing to me. :)

Actually, you simply pull the "I was baiting you, really!" when the conversation doesn't go in the direction you had hoped. It's highly predictable to everyone. :jerkit:

Now just stop. I'm feeling more sorry for you than I do with Backlash admitting he has a drinking problem. At least his goes away in the morning.

[waywardgs]

Actually, you simply pull the "I was baiting you, really!" when the conversation doesn't go in the direction you had hoped. It's highly predictable to everyone. :jerkit:

Now just stop. I'm feeling more sorry for you than I do with Backlash admitting he has a drinking problem. At least his goes away in the morning.

You forgot to use the word "faggot." Maybe you posted before coffee?

[Parkbandit]

You forgot to use the word "faggot." Maybe you posted before coffee?

You object to the word "faggot" but casually used the term "pussy"?

Guess if I was called that my whole life, I would object to it too.

Sorry you have a raging case of hypocrititis. I hope it's terminal though.

[waywardgs]

You object to the word "faggot" but casually used the term "pussy"?

Guess if I was called that my whole life, I would object to it too.

Sorry you have a raging case of hypocrititis. I hope it's terminal though.

Parkbandit and the Herda Haddas, playing night at your local redneck Florida shithole, folks!

[Parkbandit]

Parkbandit and the Herda Haddas, playing night at your local redneck Florida shithole, folks!

waywardgs will be sucking dicks outside the Flame-Ingos in Key West all weekend. Free admission.

[Astray]

Can you two get a room and hate fuck already?

[Parkbandit]

Can you two get a room and hate fuck already?

Gross.

No thanks.

[Astray]

Gross.

No thanks.

Fine, don't hate fuck. Just beat the shit out of each other.

[Kembal]

So before we get into another fallacy argument, by "not normal" are you saying "never happens unless you donate money to their campaign" or just "not likely to happen unless you donate money to their campaign"?

Not likely to happen.


They really aren't but okay...

Prove otherwise. Just pointing to what the law says doesn't indicate realities on the ground.


...why does that matter in the slightest bit? So you have no problem with a SuperPAC that endorse the entire Republican party or tries to get multiple senators elected?

a) They have extremely poor track records when they try to do so in general elections and b) in terms of influence, it's no different than donating to the political party itself or the party committee dedicated to electing Representatives/Senators. (NRSC/NRCC/DSCC/DCCC)


No one believes that? NO ONE? Well it's kind of hard to argue when you're speaking for everyone so I guess I'll cede this point to you.

Fine, overbroad statement. No campaign finance expert believes it.


And what if I wanted to spend my entire life savings, 3.2 million dollars, on making sure Hilary never gets elected? Should I not be allowed to spend my money how I see fit? Am I going to have to keep receipts of how much money I spent and on what and report it to the IRS so they can make sure I don't go over the limit? Are you saying the government should get in the habit of telling me how and when I express my freedom of speech? The government is going to tell me whether or not I can run an ad on the radio or if I can spend money on a billboard?

The government already is in the business of telling you of what disclosures you must make if you do a political ad, and you're required to report to the FEC your spending if it's over $250. Independent Expenditures are unlimited as long they are completely uncoordinated.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/notices.shtml

Where you and I disagree on is that candidate-specific SuperPACs are uncoordinated with the campaign. You seem to think that's actually happening, where all the evidence shows that they're evading the requirements every way possible without obviously outright breaking them, and counting on the FEC to be deadlocked so they won't get sanctioned. And yes again, both parties.

I don't see you changing your mind, so there's no point in discussing it further.

[Tgo01]

Independent Expenditures are unlimited as long they are completely uncoordinated.

Exactly. Do you have a problem with this?

[Warriorbird]

Exactly. Do you have a problem with this?

There's never any coordination! Ever! Really!

[Tgo01]

There's never any coordination! Ever! Really!

I just don't see the giant leap from me using my fortune to speak my mind to me giving money to someone else who can better make sure my message is heard by as many people as possible.

The only possible answer could be people want the government to make sure people can't use their own money to take out ads and I think that's all kinds of silly.

[Warriorbird]

I just don't see the giant leap from me using my fortune to speak my mind to me giving money to someone else who can better make sure my message is heard by as many people as possible.

The only possible answer could be people want the government to make sure people can't use their own money to take out ads and I think that's all kinds of silly.

It renders the whole thing meaningless. Democrats and Republicans wantonly violate it.

[Tgo01]

It renders the whole thing meaningless. Democrats and Republicans wantonly violate it.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that all Democrats and all Republicans just completely ignore the no coordination rule, just flat out ignore it.

What is the solution then? Prevent people from speaking their mind? Sounds like it would be easier to actually, y'know, regulate candidates than to start regulating each and every single person who wants to take out an ad in the newspaper.

[Warriorbird]

Let's just say for the sake of argument that all Democrats and all Republicans just completely ignore the no coordination rule, just flat out ignore it.

What is the solution then? Prevent people from speaking their mind? Sounds like it would be easier to actually, y'know, regulate candidates than to start regulating each and every single person who wants to take out an ad in the newspaper.

Publicly funded elections in which the candidates duly get to speak their mind.

[Tgo01]

Publicly funded elections in which the candidates duly get to speak their mind.

And again, what if I, Tgo01, wants to use his massive fortune to run television ads to let the whole world know that I think Hilary Clinton is the worst candidate in the history of candidates? Is the government going to shut me down? Like tell every television station and newspaper that I can't run ads with them?

[Warriorbird]

And again, what if I, Tgo01, wants to use his massive fortune to run television ads to let the whole world know that I think Hilary Clinton is the worst candidate in the history of candidates? Is the government going to shut me down? Like tell every television station and newspaper that I can't run ads with them?

Well, since you're a Republican, do you want China able to fund a massive increasing balloon of Democratic funding? Do you want unions to do whatever shady shit they want?

[Latrinsorm]

What is the solution then?Universal surveillance.

[Tgo01]

Well, since you're a Republican, do you want China able to fund a massive increasing balloon of Democratic funding?

As soon as China becomes part of the US then sure.


Do you want unions to do whatever shady shit they want?

How did we go from me wanting to run television ads to me wanting to allow unions to do whatever shady shit they want?

[Parkbandit]

Well, since you're a Republican, do you want China able to fund a massive increasing balloon of Democratic funding? Do you want unions to do whatever shady shit they want?

You don't believe China has been giving to campaigns for decades?

What's it like to be that naive?

[Warriorbird]

As soon as China becomes part of the US then sure.

How did we go from me wanting to run television ads to me wanting to allow unions to do whatever shady shit they want?

Everybody deserves to do whatever "speech" that they want with their money though!


You don't believe China has been giving to campaigns for decades?

What's it like to be that naive?

I believe exactly this. That's why I'd like to see the system cleaned up.

[Tgo01]

Everybody deserves to do whatever "speech" that they want with their money though!

I'll agree to that as soon as our constitution extends those rights to non US citizens not living in the US.

[Candor]

Universal surveillance.

Ya know Latrinsorm, you need to set an example. Install cameras inside your home in every room and set up a website so everyone in the world can watch you.

[Warriorbird]

Ya know Latrinsorm, you need to set an example. Install cameras inside your home in every room and set up a website so everyone in the world can watch you.

He's done this already... for...

https://vine.co/v/MFWZahKIQAj


I'll agree to that as soon as our constitution extends those rights to non US citizens not living in the US.

My point is that this already happens because of our pathetically lax campaign finance laws. Then we have dumb shit like Citizens United and make it even worse.

[Tenlaar]

And again, what if I, Tgo01, wants to use his massive fortune to run television ads to let the whole world know that I think Hilary Clinton is the worst candidate in the history of candidates?

You go to prison.

There will be plenty of room when all the marijuana offenders are released.

[ClydeR]

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. -- Jeb Bush told about 350 of the top donors to his super PAC on Sunday evening that the organization has raised more money in its first 100 days than any other Republican operation in modern history, according to several people in attendance.

Bush did not say how much had been raised, but senior Republicans said they think his super PAC, Right to Rise, is on track to collect $100 million by the end of May. Those who heard Bush speak said it signals that he and his team are confident that they've amassed a sizable political fortune that will help bankroll his fledgling presidential aspirations.

Until now, George W. Bush has held the record for the best presidential fundraising debut of a GOP candidate.

More... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/26/jeb-bush-tells-his-donors-theyve-helped-make-history/)

It's hard to imagine any of the other Republican candidates matching that.

[Androidpk]

A great day for democracy indeed!

[~Rocktar~]

It took Benny and the Dems what 1.2 trillion+ to buy a mediocre Marxist into the White House last time. It costs a lot to win the Presidency.

[ClydeR]

Jeb Bush is changing the rules at his PAC to stop discriminating against successful people.


Over the coming days, according to one person briefed on the Right to Rise plans, Bush will try to accelerate the cash flow. Hoping to avoid the public perception that he’d been indebted to a few extremely wealthy benefactors, the former governor initially imposed a $1 million cap on donations to the super PAC.

But now, the source said, that restriction is being lifted. The move is partly out of concern that, with other Republican candidates raising large sums, more cash could be needed. (A Bush spokesman declined to comment.)

More... (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/jeb-bush-right-to-rise-super-pac-campaign-117753.html)