3 Things You Didn't Know about Money in Politics

#2
#2
Trevor Burrus is an accomplished author. I recommend you read everything he writes, including ; A Conspiracy Against Obamacare: The Volokh Conspiracy and the Health Care Case
 
#3
#3
1. I can agree with that. However, it is also used in smear campaigns against your opposition which promotes disinformation. So this is a double edged sword.

2. This is contrary to #1 in my opinion. More money means more publicity, more publicity means more face time with the voter. And more face time means better chances of those that don't automatically vote (R) or (D) punches the card on the name they recognize.

3. True that money won't correlate with political opinions, sort of. Political opinions will correlate with the biggest groups that donate though. A group with an agenda calls up their favorite (or not so favorite) politician and says "we'd like you to consider the vote coming up as well as your reelection this fall." While nothing illegal has taken place, it is certainly implied that they want the vote to go a certain way of the donations are not going to be coming in.
 
#6
#6
GAVol said:
I completely buy it. It makes sense that campaign spending would create more informed voters. That's not to say that it also influences the uninformed too.
Click to expand...

It's a shame that didn't apply to the last two elections.
 
#7
#7
I am still leery of people being able to spend as much as they want, anonymously, in an effort to cause someone to win or lose an election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
I'm still leery of politicians having to LIE & CHEAT their way to win an election....cough Obama cough.
Click to expand...



the difference is, when a politician running for office says a lie, the other side has the opportunity to publicly investigate and comment. When billionaires, on either side, donate anonymously to run an add of dubious honesty, it is very difficult to determine who is behind it, and what their agenda is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
the difference is, when a politician running for office says a lie, the other side has the opportunity to publicly investigate and comment. When billionaires, on either side, donate anonymously to run an add of dubious honesty, it is very difficult to determine who is behind it, and what their agenda is.
Click to expand...


George Soros agrees
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
lawgator1 said:
the difference is, when a politician running for office says a lie, the other side has the opportunity to publicly investigate and comment. When billionaires, on either side, donate anonymously to run an add of dubious honesty, it is very difficult to determine who is behind it, and what their agenda is.
Click to expand...

:crazy: more blah blah blah.....BS. How can you investigate when the other side stonewalls & deflects constantly while been called a racist at every move?
 
Last edited:
#12
#12
lawgator1 said:
the difference is, when a politician running for office says a lie, the other side has the opportunity to publicly investigate and comment. When billionaires, on either side, donate anonymously to run an add of dubious honesty, it is very difficult to determine who is behind it, and what their agenda is.
Click to expand...

who cares who's behind it? if it is of dubious honesty that is typically exposed.
 
#13
#13
Didn't want to start a new thread, but this goes along with the money in politics theme.

For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a beneficial relationship - The Washington Post

In summary:
1) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton secures an agreement from Russia to buy $3.7 billion worth of Boeing aircraft.
2) Boeing donates $900,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation and $2 million to the US Pavilion in Shanghai - considered her biggest achievement the first year in office
3) Boeing's top lobbyist holds a fundraiser for Hillary's presidential super PAC.
 
Last edited:
#14
#14
golfballs said:
Didn't want to start a new thread, but this goes along with the money in politics theme.

For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a beneficial relationship - The Washington Post

In summary:
1) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton secures an agreement from Russia to buy $3.7 billion worth of Boeing aircraft.
2) Boeing donates $900,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation and $2 million to the US Pavilion in Shanghai - considered her biggest achievement the first year in office
3) Boeing's top lobbyist holds a fundraiser for Hillary's presidential super PAC.
Click to expand...

It's funny and telling that Dem strategy is to focus on race, gender and "big money" instead of policies that the public want.

If you look at Dem contributors to any number of SuperPACs you see tons of rich people shoveling big$.

It's all smoke screeny
 
#15
#15
volinbham said:
who cares who's behind it? if it is of dubious honesty that is typically exposed.
Click to expand...


Knowing who is behind it gives insight into why it was run and is part and parcel of examining whether the statements made within it are correct or are intentionally misleading.

I think that if someone who owns let's say a major stake in a defense contractor sponsors an ad in the GOP primaries criticizing Rand Paul for wanting to cut defense spending, then the voters ought to be aware of who paid for that ad as it bears on whether the source has a motive to fabricate the claims in the ad.

Certainly, the source of the ad is very much relevant to the degree to which the viewer should accept or be skeptical of its contents.

I'm not saying they can't run the ad. I'm not in any way stifling their free speech. I'm just saying it should not be done anonymously since it is being shown over public channels to try to influence who wins public office.
 
#16
#16
The "who" doesn't change whether or not the ad has fabricated claims.

Honestly, don't you already assume that if an ad is negative about a candidate that you should be skeptical? Surely someone who is pro the candidate wouldn't run a negative ad.

Also, the issue of how much one can donate is different than anonymity of the donation.

The ad will have an identifying mark indicating what organization paid for it and you can check out the organization easily to find out what they are about.
 
#17
#17
volinbham said:
The "who" doesn't change whether or not the ad has fabricated claims.

Honestly, don't you already assume that if an ad is negative about a candidate that you should be skeptical? Surely someone who is pro the candidate wouldn't run a negative ad.

Also, the issue of how much one can donate is different than anonymity of the donation.

The ad will have an identifying mark indicating what organization paid for it and you can check out the organization easily to find out what they are about.
Click to expand...


The "who" tells the voter whether the sponsor has an agenda that ought to be considered in judging the accuracy of the ad. I think that is basic common sense.

If the ad is by a campaign opponent, then yes, it is readily apparent that it should be viewed with skepticism. But if the ad is from some murky organization with an innocuous sounding name it is more difficult to make an informed judgment.
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
The "who" tells the voter whether the sponsor has an agenda that ought to be considered in judging the accuracy of the ad. I think that is basic common sense.

If the ad is by a campaign opponent, then yes, it is readily apparent that it should be viewed with skepticism. But if the ad is from some murky organization with an innocuous sounding name it is more difficult to make an informed judgment.
Click to expand...

The "who" is clearly stated in the organization paying for the ad (even if they are using funds from an individual).

It ain't hard to figure out the motivation of the organization.
 
#19
#19
volinbham said:
The "who" is clearly stated in the organization paying for the ad (even if they are using funds from an individual).

It ain't hard to figure out the motivation of the organization.
Click to expand...


Well, I think we understand where each other is coming from, and the real reasoning behind our positions.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top