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.
"ecgberht wrote:
KMAYDSOB is a personal attack. Get it?
July 5, 2012 - 5:47 pm"
WHAAAAAAAAWAAAAAA!!!!!!
My Comment was about Fair Share Taxation and Avoidance, not directed at you and I think worthy of consideration from the others who visit this Site instead of being buried under your usual piles of your spurious "Facts".
And that's all I have to say about that.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"My Comment was about Fair Share Taxation and Avoidance, not directed at you and I think worthy of consideration from the others who visit this Site instead of being buried under your usual piles of your spurious "Facts"."
So you can post links to lies and hearsay and have nothing more to say about it while my facts are "spurious"?!
It's easy, mchaun. Just prove me wrong. You won't, because you CAN'T. Instead, you throw out invective. That's about as typical as a liberal gets.
My comment here is a repeat of one made on 5/30/12 by JS in SD to the following news program.
Former Justice Predicts Cracks in Citizens United Decision By NBC's Pete Williams
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11969505-former-justice-...
It is an EXCELLENT campaign finance reform proposal that really makes sense. Having been posted publicly, I presume it is OK to repeat it here. I have organized it in outline form for more clarity, but none of the words have been changed.
COMMENT
JS in SD #1.12 Thur., 5/30/12 (1:11 AM) 19 Votes
1) The law needs to be changed so that only those eligible to vote in an election can give to candidates in that election.
a) In other words, only those who are legal residents that are eligible to vote in a given state can donate to candidates in statewide elections such as senators, governors, etc.
b) By the same token, only those that reside in a given congressional or state assembly or state senate district can give to candidates in those elections.
2) The same should apply to ballot measures or initiative. Only those eligible to vote on those items should be allowed to donate.
3) The same would go to national elections, only those eligible to cast a vote for president can make a donation to a presidential candidate.
a) This will take all of the big money from corporations and outside interests out of politics.
b) No more corporate money, no more union money, no more special interest groups - only people eligible to vote get to make contributions.
4) Also, candidates would not be allowed to use their personal wealth to fund their campaigns beyond the personal donation limit.
a) This would keep wealthy people from trying to buy elections the way Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman did in CA (where I should point out that both failed in their attempts).
A separate, additional comment follows in order to remain within the 2000 character limit.
This comment follows one made by me on 7/6 at 12:11 AM. As indicated in that comment, the following was made on 5/30/12 by JS in SD to the following news program.
Former Justice Predicts Cracks in Citizens United Decision By NBC's Pete Williams
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11969505-former-justice-...
I have organized it in outline form for more clarity, but none of the words have been changed.
JS in SD #1.12 Thur., 5/30/12 (1:11 AM) 19 Votes
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE would be to have all campaigns financed with public funds.
1) Anyone who gets enough valid signatures on petitions to have their names placed on primary ballots would get a set amount of money to spend in the primary election.
2) Then the winners of those primary elections would get a set amount to spend in the general election campaign.
a) If there is no primary involved then anyone who gathers the required signatures and meets the requirements to have their names on the general election ballot would get a set amount of money for their campaign.
b) Money would not be able to be carried over from a primary campaign to a general election campaign. This would keep those who have no challenger in a primary from saving that money to outspend their opponents in the general election.
3) In addition, like in the alternate proposal above, candidates would be precluded from using their personal wealth to supplement the pubic funding.
Either of these systems would level the playing field allowing average citizens to have a realistic chance at getting elected. No one would be able to use their connections to wealthy individuals or personal wealth to give them a big monetary advantage in the elections.
I agree. I'm irritated also, including on some other issues. However, I get highly motivated to ENTHUSIASTICALLY support Obama, now, since not doing so will increase Romney's chance of winning. I hope you and like-minded Democrats & Independents will consider the following.
As I see it, the critical issues are (in addition to the immediate concerns of jobs, economy, health care, etc.):
1) What will be the long term direction in which America will be going?
2) Who is going to define it- non-compromising, extreme right wing conservatives or “liberals” (who have moved to the right of center in recent years), or a compromise of the two ideologies?
3) If spending is cut too soon and too much to reduce the debt, instead of increasing the future debt to be paid by our children, etc., they may have to cope with a deeper, double-dip recession or depression (look at the European approach of present austerity instead of growth and investment).
4) What state will America be in after the economy has recovered, and what will be the character of reforms that will be instituted? What will be the long term state of America’s society? Will we still have a Plutocracy or will we have a chance to restore Democracy?
5) The Congressional races will have a substantial impact- not only the Presidential race. Instead of gridlock, traditional functioning of the Congress will only be restored when the extreme, non-compromising members are no longer the majority.
This is probably the most important vote of our lifetime. Voters should objectively consider the impact of each of the near term and long term issues, assuming if the Democrats were to win and then if the Republicans were to win.
Recent history makes it clear to me that:
Conservatives have a much better chance of influencing a Democratic dominated government than
Liberals would have influencing an extreme Republican dominated government
I agree. I'm irritated also, including on some other issues. However, I get highly motivated to ENTHUSIASTICALLY support Obama, now, since not doing so will increase Romney's chance of winning. I hope you and like-minded Democrats & Independents will consider the following.
As I see it, the critical issues are (in addition to the immediate concerns of jobs, economy, health care, etc.):
1) What will be the long term direction in which America will be going?
2) Who is going to define it- non-compromising, extreme right wing conservatives or “liberals” (who have moved to the right of center in recent years), or a compromise of the two ideologies?
3) If spending is cut too soon and too much to reduce the debt, instead of increasing the future debt to be paid by our children, etc., they may have to cope with a deeper, double-dip recession or depression (look at the European approach of present austerity instead of growth and investment).
4) What state will America be in after the economy has recovered, and what will be the character of reforms that will be instituted? What will be the long term state of America’s society? Will we still have a Plutocracy or will we have a chance to restore Democracy?
5) The Congressional races will have a substantial impact- not only the Presidential race. Instead of gridlock, traditional functioning of the Congress will only be restored when the extreme, non-compromising members are no longer the majority.
This is probably the most important vote of our lifetime. Voters should objectively consider the impact of each of the near term and long term issues, assuming if the Democrats were to win and then if the Republicans were to win.
Recent history makes it clear to me that:
Conservatives have a much better chance of influencing a Democratic dominated government than
Liberals would have influencing an extreme Republican dominated government.
Bill,
1) Great question.
2) "Who is going to define it- non-compromising, extreme right wing conservatives or “liberals” (who have moved to the right of center in recent years), or a compromise of the two ideologies?"
"moved to the right"? Do locked conferences and "we won the election we write the bills" ring a bell? Democrats are more hard-core left than EVER. I know that some conservatives like to throw around terms like "communist" and "socialist", but surprisingly, there are those on the left, including some on this board who EMBRACE those ideologies. So don't talk to me about "moved to the right".
3) "they may have to cope with a deeper, double-dip recession or depression"
As spending goes down in GOVERNMENT, the economy moves up. As public sector jobs decrease, private sector jobs go up. Government spending doesn't move economies. It can't. They're too big. Only spending of citizens can make them grow.
4) "What state will America be in after the economy has recovered," If Obama is re-elected, we will not recover. He will complete his "transformational" view of the United States unfettered. His open mike slip to the Russian President shows us that.
5) Congressional races will have no impact unless Romney is elected. Obama will simply ignore Congress and do what he wants. The immigration action shows us that.
You have to read the tea leaves Bill.
The caller at the 46th minute was a pathetic nutjob, hopefully not typical of her party.
We are all waiting to be galvanized with a cogent plan for economic growth and budgetary control. As it is, we’ve seen neither from either in this campaign. My thoughts here:
http://yourthoughtshere.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/enough-talk/
With the amounts of money being spent in all these campaigns, I wonder how the candidates square this with their belief in God. To see what a person values, look at how they spend their money and time. Supposing candidate X takes 25% of the (say) 5 mil he was going to spend getting elected and puts it into some worthwhile charity. Maybe that would do more good than going after an office. I believe there is a corrupting effect and that a number of the politicians have no clue what it really means to serve.
I also see a whole lot of hate in a number of posts here.