Campaign Spending
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-05/campaign-spending
A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, and you've got a record presidential election. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United has unleashed a flood of big money in the 2012 campaign from wealthy individuals and others. The new breed of Super PACs played a major role in the Republican primary fight. Now, in the general election, they are helping to finance the most intensive early barrage of TV advertising in history -- and the most negative one. For the first time, an incumbent president and his allies might be outspent by his challenger. We explore the battle for bucks in the contest between President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Who's spending what -- and whether it makes a difference.
Guests
Jan Baran
head of the election law group at Wiley Rein LLP; former general counsel to the Republican National Committee; author, "The Election Law Primer for Corporations."
Reid Wilson
editor-in-chief of National Journal Hotline.
Margie Omero
president and founder, Momentum Analysis, a Democratic public opinion research firm.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
You would have to be a complete moron,or a U.S.Supreme Court Justice to believe Corporate Campaign Contributions,are not bribery. In my home town we have about 30 public officials going to jail for doing favors and issuing VOTES,on issues and contracts favoring the BRIBER.
Mr. Jack Abramoff (Casino Jack) is out selling his book about his history of bribery and corruption,even extending to the Oval Office.There are more than 3000 Lobbyists on health care alone,earning billions,and handing out billions more to anyone who willing to take the bribe. If you are a right wing believer,and have heard about Solyndra,you must also believe those campaign donations corrupted Barack Obama.
The amount of money spent on campaigns is a major problem. Think of all we could do with that money. Corporations and wealthy people spend millions to lobby against holding banks, insurance companies and many other industries accountable for their actions, to prevent holding them to standards to improve the nation's health (broadly defined "health"). Instead, all that money could provide health care, job training, improved roads, burying electric lines, etc. I feel sick when I think about how Citizens United has made a mockery of democracy. Money to buy air time, mailed & newsprint ads & robo-calls does not equal free speech. But it does buy all that & their own politicians and sway the votes of those who do not do their own research and who believe the lies they are fed.
Campaign donations used to be one of politic's dirty secrets. The days of the smokey back room are over. Now it is in our faces and even approved by the Supreme Court. Who is to blame? Us, the people. If those cheesy ads with the doomsday voice did not influence voters they would not be on our televisions, so I absolutely agree with you about swaying voters who do not do their own research. I often hear folks say,"well, my friends say..." which means they are more willing to appease their friends and family than make up their own minds. So sad. Such a huge responsibility for today's voters. This sounds sarcastic but it is not meant t to, I'm being totally serious.
How about a little perspective here. The United States federal government borrows about twice as much PER DAY as both campaigns will spend this entire election cycle. If your serious about fiscal responsibility this is what you would focus on.
$3.96 billion per day since September 28, 2007" This also coincides with the congress being held by democrats, Pelosi and Reid.
"The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3.96 billion per day since September 28, 2007"
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Dawn Castle wrote: " I'm being totally serious"
Why are you posting before the show?
Dawn Castle says,the days of back room deals are over.CORRECT. Today the payoffs are made at 4 star luxury hotels and resorts,like when A.L.E.C. sponsors these events.Or like last weeks event in Utah. My local politician got extra jail time for getting his kick back at a strip club,while our former Governor got his kick back at a country club and NO extra jail time.
Some say we spend less on politics than candy. What morons. Don`t they get what having to spend money to be heard means? I`ve seen video from all over the country where the politicians yell at the voters. They don`t ask the people anything at town hall meetings.They tell voters what their sponsors (puppet masters) have programmed them to say.
FASCISM !
FASCISM !
FASCISM !
It's great to see all the libs/dems complaining about the $ being spent - they were quite silent 4 years ago when the "Campaigner in Chief" walked away from public money when he realized he could crush his opponent with private $. Now that the shoe is on the other foot - the whining begins - better get used to it - you are about to BE crushed.
Why does no journalist challenge people who talk about people that need to pay "their fair share"? What does that even mean? This country is built on the rule of law, not on the rule of fair.
What is fair about people like me working 60-70 hours a week and having to provide money via taxes to people who refuse to work at all?
One aspect of the repercussions of President's stance on Super PACs that I don't hear anyone discussing is frustration that he didn't act sooner. As a solid supporter of President Obama, I am irritated that he failed to adequately plan for the conservative Super PAC train barreling down the tracks straight at him. Now when I get pleas from his campaign about how he is being outspent by outside groups, I think, "Well, whose fault is that?!?" It's hard to get motivated to make up financially for what was so clearly a poor tactical decision on his part.
The issue is not total amount of money, it is WHO is contributing. If someone wants to contribute and not own up to their support, I seriously suspect their motives are nefarious.
Lee, Ann Arbor, MI
If anyone claims that knowing "who" is contributing is the critical concern - not the amount of $ - then what has been the impact of knowing that the Koch brothers and George Soros are large contributors - absolutely nothing as would knowing who are the other major donors in this year's campaign.
None of this was relevant 4 years ago - now that Obama is in deep trouble and being crushed in spending - it becomes an issue - PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've always thought knowing who is paying for campaigns is important. Keeping contributors' identity secret is, as I hear it, a big attraction of the new "issue" pacs.
One of the guests commented that the voters she speaks with do no raise campaign finance as an issue of concern. As a marketing professional, I suggest this is exactly the outcome the people running the super pacs and allied "messaging" organizations are after. People investing in these organizations do so and expect the same sorts of outcomes as corporate executives who fund marketing campaigns. The only thing new about any of this is the scale of individual spending and in some cases, the secrecy shielding the identities of donors and veracity of the content. Finally, I would concur with the caller who suggested our current campaign finance laws are enabling rich (and white) men to more easily "buy" a government optimized for rich white men.
Consultant,
It WAS a big deal four years ago. McCain complained and Faux Snooze reminded us daily about the situation. You had better have your cogs lubed......your memory is slipping.
But the big differnce this time involves two things:
a. Corporations now are kicking in to out shout personal donations
b. The absolute birther ignorant hatred bulit up by the tea party et al is ten times worse toward Obama
Even the hatred for Billary shrivels by comparison to that stirred up by unscrupulous weirdos like Trump.
Thanks, LibVet!!
America shares the fate of all the great empires of the past. It's no longer a question of "if". It's now a question of "when".
LibVet wrote ignorant hatred
Your posts are getting nastier by the day, little if anything in the way of factual content and more irrelevant.
ONE GUY GOES INTO A CHURCH AND MAKES A SELFLESS CONTRIBUTION TO THE POOR BOX. THE NEXT GUY GOES INTO THE SAME CHURCH AND GREEDILY AND SELFISHLY STEALS THE MONEY FROM THE POOR BOX.......
IN THE FOX NEWS AND RIGHT WING MIND THEY ARE EQUAL, BECAUSE THEY BOTH WENT TO CHURCH.
Warren Buffet and George Soros say,do not treat us special.The Koch Bros. demand,we are ROYALTY,we are SPECIAL.WE ARE YOUR BETTERS.They demand a tax rate of zero for themselves,a high rate on workers,and the right to pollute and kill us.
Arkus,
You note that my posts are nastier because I said "ignorant hatred". In my value set, hatred is ALWAYS ignorant........just fact, no vituperative. Those who hate Obama and Hillary and Bill without knowing them personally are obvously ignorant.
And hatred is to be rejected at all times. Personally I hate NO one or wish anyone evil. I held no ill will toward W or even Cheney and I put up with a lot of troubles because of them. So my observation about those screaming crowds who labeled themselves tea partiers, especially the ones who yelled epithets and spat at members of Congress and those who could not follow proper manners at town halls implies no hatred to those obviously misguided souls. I don't recall launching any putdowns against YOU. I did point out your penchant for such numerous posts, especially ones even before broadcast time.
Note: one of your posts today criticizing another poster was time stamped at 9:15AM.........that's 45 minutes before Diane's listed broadcast time.
Pot and Kettle time?
@ Consultant: It WAS an issue for many Americans 4 yrs ago. But we were only citizens, and the MSM LOOOOVes to cover The Horse Race, not issues. Since then, Citizens United has actually woken up a lot more people and it was something even the media couldn't ignore So I argue that the increased interest has nothing to do with your "Now the shoe is on the other foot, the Dems are screaming" meme.
"In 2004, the A. T. Massey Coal Co. faced a $50-million verdict in a contract dispute with another coal firm. That year, its president and chief executive gave $3 million to candidate Brent Benjamin's campaign for a seat on the state Supreme Court. Benjamin won the seat; 60% of his funding came from the Massey executive.
Shortly afterward, the West Virginia Supreme Court agreed to hear Massey's appeal in the contract dispute. Despite pleas that he withdraw, Justice Benjamin cast the deciding vote in a 3-2 ruling that overturned the verdict"
__________________________________________________
Watching Antonin Scalia accept $250K to be keynote speakers at a right wing extremists convention rather than return for the Rehnquist funeral says it all for me. The same folks the T-Party 5 on the SCOTUS wrote the Citizens United Law for.
THE BEST JUSTICE MONEY CAN BUY !!!
"dlc0613 wrote:
{{Why does no journalist challenge people who talk about people that need to pay "their fair share"? What does that even mean? This country is built on the rule of law, not on the rule of fair."}}
The allowed taxing provisions of the Constitution were fair ie. nondiscriminatory. The Amendment allowing Income Taxes was per se fair.
But those with the power to get things their way soon started piling on the inequities.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-off...
This piece describes a minute portion of the machines that people like Romney use to avoid taxes- a minute portion, but nevertheless, so Byzantine as to be beyond the ability of any ordinary Taxpayer to grasp without the assistance of Legions of Lawyers, Lobbyists, Accountants and Politicians.
We like to point to other Countries and smirk at the stunts the Rich use to illegally avoid Taxes, yet ignore the reality that our Rich don't have to break the Rules of Law, they just change them.
While the ordinary people are handed a Bill- you earned this much, you pay this Tax.
{{What is fair about people like me working 60-70 hours a week and having to provide money via taxes to people who refuse to work at all?
July 5, 2012 - 10:37 am}}
If you only worked 35 hours a week, there would be another job for those, "people who refuse to work at all". I suppose your Wife/Husband also works 60-70 hours a week, giving one Family four Incomes allowing your Brats to accept unpaid Internships and you to whine about (minimally) supporting those on Unemployment or Welfare who were displaced by your greed.
You feign ignorance of your Social Contract obligation to allow some crumbs for those whose losses in our Zero Sum World formed your gains.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Patsy Nomore wrote:
"ONE GUY GOES INTO A CHURCH AND MAKES A SELFLESS CONTRIBUTION TO THE POOR BOX. THE NEXT GUY GOES INTO THE SAME CHURCH AND GREEDILY AND SELFISHLY STEALS THE MONEY FROM THE POOR BOX......."
Subsitute TAXPAYER for ONE GUY, AMERICAN SOCIETY for CHURCH, TAX for SELFLESS CONTRIBUTION, GENERAL FUND OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for POOR BOX, and WELFARE RECIPIENT for NEXT GUY, and you have what happens every day in this country.
mchaun wrote:
"This piece describes a minute portion of the machines that people like Romney use to avoid taxes- a minute portion,"
Don't be fooled! I saw this same post on other MBs. It contains things like this:
"But his critics point to several cases where Bain bought companies, loaded them with debt, and paid itself extravagant fees, thereby bankrupting the companies and destroying tens of thousands of jobs."
Then you shouldn't have a problem documenting a few should you, mchaun? Perhaps they're in the article? Oh wait ... they're not! The deals that the article talks about are AFTER ROMNEY LEFT BAIN!!! The rest is a hit piece on the fact that Romney is rich, and, like many wealthy people (probably some who work for Vanity Fair!) use offshore accounts. Yup! Vanity Fair ... That's where I'D go for reliable journalism!!!
One of the principle sources, Josh Kosman's book "The Buyout of America" [doesn't sound one-sided does it?], "singles out Bain Capital in particular. “They take pride in pushing the leverage envelope ... more than their peers,” he says. “I have heard that from limited partners in Bain’s funds. I have heard that from bankers who lend money to finance their leveraged buyouts". Last time I checked, that is what is called "hearsay" (another term for bee-ess).
Yeah, gimme more Vanity Fair!!!
Part deux:
But, while we're on the subject ...
"During his campaign for the Presidency in 2008, Obama indicated that he would crack down on the use of offshore accounts. He was one of the signatories of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, legislation put to Congress in 2007 that included a blacklist of 34 jurisdictions which he claimed were used by US citizens to avoid taxes, costing the government nearly US$100 billion a year."
http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.asp...
How's he doin' on that one, mchaun?!
You want to make a point, mchaun? How about attacking the complete cluster-f of a tax code we have in this country that pushes wealthy people from every political bent to move money out of the country. Every Conservative who has suggested a flat tax or a simpler tax has been hammered for it by the left!
"ecgberht wrote:
mchaun wrote:
...
Yeah, gimme more Vanity Fair!!!
July 5, 2012 - 3:23 pm"
KMAYDSOB!!!
My Comment and the Vanity Fair article speak for themselves.
Interested Readers can read the article and make up their own minds. They DO NOT need your invariably irrelevant, deranged interpretations and "what is called 'hearsay' (another term for bee-ess)".
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mchaun wrote:
"My Comment and the Vanity Fair article speak for themselves.
Interested Readers can read the article and make up their own minds. "
You don't want anyone to "make up their own minds". You just want them to agree with you. They can make up their own minds after they hear both sides. That's why I posted the facts that contradict the article.
There's a reason that hearsay is not admissible in court.
By the way, for the KMAYDSOB comment, I flagged your message as offensive. Expect a love note from the board moderator.
"ecgberht wrote:
{{That's why I posted the facts that contradict the article.}}
Your facts vs. Vanity Fair's hearsay???
Again you demonstrate your near total lack of understanding of simple dialog.
Every thing on this Site is hearsay or opinions, certainly yours, as well.
{{By the way, for the KMAYDSOB comment, I flagged your message as offensive. Expect a love note from the board moderator.
July 5, 2012 - 4:40 pm"}}
By the way, your "complete cluster-f of a tax code" comment, might have earned you a flag, but I wouldn't do that, even to Eggbert the Censor.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Every thing on this Site is hearsay or opinions, certainly yours, as well."
Learn the difference between fact and opinion.
When you post links to articles that unfairly characterize someone or that contain out and out falsehoods, do not be surprised when someone challenges that with facts. And btw, just because something is posted on a mb doesn't mean it's just an opinion. Get it? Opinions are subjective. Facts are not and can be backed up with evidence.
The article states "But his critics point to several cases where Bain bought companies, loaded them with debt, and paid itself extravagant fees, thereby bankrupting the companies and destroying tens of thousands of jobs."
I just asked you to name a few that Romney was involved in. The article implies that he was. That's dishonest. If you can prove otherwise, then you would have facts on your side. But you don't. See how that works?
It also quotes Josh Kosman's book where he says, “I have heard that from limited partners in Bain’s funds. I have heard that from bankers who lend money to finance their leveraged buyouts".
But there is no substantiation for that at all. What partners? What bankers? That's "hearsay" in case you didn't know it.
So where is my lack of understanding of "simple dialog"? Wait, maybe what you're talking about is the difference between "simple dialog" and "simple HONEST dialog".
"By the way, your "complete cluster-f of a tax code" comment, might have earned you a flag, but I wouldn't do that, even to Eggbert the Censor."
Learn the difference between strong statements and personal attacks. Mine was a strong statement to be sure. KMAYDSOB is a personal attack. Get it?