Super PACs And The 2012 Presidential Election
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-11/super-pacs-and-2012-presidential-election
Super PACs have been called the wild card in this years presidential election. Following the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision on Citizens United these groups are allowed to accept unlimited donations and advocate for and against specific candidates. By November 2012 super PACs aligned with Governor Mitt Romney estimate they will have raised about $800 million dollars, about eight times what the pro-Obama super PAC hopes to bring in. Please join us for a conversation on super PACs and their role in the 2012 presidential race.
Guests
Jonathan Collegio
communications director, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS
Robert Draper
freelance writer, a correspondent for GQ and a contributor to The New York Times Magazine
Bill Burton
a founder and senior strategist for Priorities USA Action and
former deputy press secretary at the Obama White House
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
benburrito wrote:
"I would like to know, not the average donation, but the median donation to each campaign. I think it would show that Romney is bought and paid for by a few people and corporations. "
Why did Barack Obama eschew public money for his campaign in 2008, ben?
LibVet, not much to respond to here, but your opinion piece on Fox News. You don't like it. I get it. But you do not present any facts. Not one.
"Roger Ailes &Co followed Nixon's desires to establish and control talk radio and TV and they succeeded"
You forgot about Air America, LibVet. Why did it fail? Don't liberals listen to the radio?
"Faux Snooze aka ho hum newsertainment always stuffs in some token "liberal" punching bag and calls their drivel fair and balanced"
Your statement is demonstrably false, LibVet. This study was around the 2008 election. I'm sure Pew will repeat it this year.
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436#fn1
"Fair and balanced" is well earned by Fox, especially when compared to other networks.
Most of the hours of talk show angst over political contribution transparency is wasted. If that much time was spent analyzing and truthfully parsing the main themes of the week's ads, that would be a great contribution to the debate. Transparency in today's context is primarily the concern of activists who hope that they could find names that might help them to besmirch the message. But, shouldn't we be debating the ideas no matter where they come from? Come on. Don't most of you know that many of the most moving ideas and concepts that our modern society is based on were advanced by people whose personal lives were scandalous, perverse, depressed, embarassing, and worse. But, still, academia and society embraces the idea or the art or the message. Politics is war by another name, but let's debate the issues. If Soros or one of his mouthpieces says something, let's parse it. If one of the Koch brothers orgs publishes a comment, let's check it. The message and the messenger are not the same. But, if it is that important, I challenge any talk show host to experiment with "talk show caller disclosure" and see exactly who is trying to bend the discussion and influence a national audience. I must admit it might add helpful dimensions to understanding the American dialog. Or we can simply continue to discuss the ideas. PS. full disclosure. I don't contribute to any political groups except small donations directly to the party, but I listen to all and make up my own mind.
Too bad, ecgberht:
Close but still no cigar.
Roger Ailes was one of Nixon's right hand guys, then later head of RNC. The hohum network was designed to be right wing per Nixon's wishes from the get-go - its very raison d'être from the beginning. Being actually "fair and balanced" would contradict its original purpose and YOU know that. Next you'll be telling us that Rush is a member of ACLU.
By the way, the ChiComs invented a military tactic they call "Ren Hai Shu" .... "human sea tactic". Your blog-a-minute style has SO many posts and SO little content. Do they pay you by the word or by the post?
P.S. Air America was not a commercial venture at any point.......basically supported by donations. NO movies or TV productions involved.
Faux is newsertainment propaganda. And it's worth a chuckle now and then to see righties running around with their hair on fire predicting the end of the world. The Five is especially funny !!
I can barely wait until November when the O gets re-elected. The total eclipse alone will be entertaining!
LibVet wrote: "I can barely wait until November when the O gets re-elected. The total eclipse alone will be entertaining!"
That would be something if it happens. But know you would be that much closer to the extreme austerity that you beckon and are oblivious too.
LibVet wrote:
"Roger Ailes was one of Nixon's right hand guys, then later head of RNC. The hohum network was designed to be right wing per Nixon's wishes from the get-go - its very raison d'être from the beginning."
Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. So what?
Fox News Channel was founded in 1996. Two years after Nixon was dead. Perhaps he channeled his wishes through a medium? You need to learn to distinguish Fox News and Fox Entertainment programming.
Your first sentence is essentially fact, the second is pure fancy.
It's ok, LibVet. You'll never be convinced because like many on the left, FNC provides a convenient bogey man. Much easier than trying to have a fact-based debate of issues.
The Pew data supports the notion that Fox is the more fair and balanced of the networks. That flies in the face of what you'd LIKE to believe. So, never mind the facts.
"P.S. Air America was not a commercial venture at any point"
Wow! You said a mouthful there!
" Your blog-a-minute style has SO many posts and SO little content. "
Have any stats to back that up, LibVet? or is that another example of your "little content". Unfortunately there's a lot of stupid on this board that is crying out to be responded to. It's all that me, Arkus, Markus, and a few others can do to keep up with it.
"I can barely wait until November when the O gets re-elected."
You can "want" that as much as you please, LibVet.
This time in 1980, with similar economies and UE, Carter led Reagan and by late October before the debate, the election was at best a dead heat. Reagan carried 44 states and beat Carter by 10 points. But what do I know.
I posted an excellent campaign finance reform proposal on the 7/5/12 Diane Rhem Show, and I repeat it here. The original 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. I have organized it in outline form for more clarity, but none of the words have been changed. The original URL is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11969505-former-justice-...
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.
The following is a continuation of the comment by Bill5 on 7/12/12 at 12:30 AM.
“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”. End of JD in SD comment.
Voters (both Republicans and Democrats) should be encouraged to form “grass-root”, organizations to pressure Congressmen to pass election finance reform that prohibits politicians from receiving any election financing from special interest groups. If enough old and new politicians think that their (re-)election would be governed by voters in such organizations rather than special interest money, reforms could be adopted and there should be a dramatic improvement in the government reflecting the voter interests rather than special interest groups.
Sorry, eggie,
Nobody assigned you or anybody else to keeping up with ANYthing on the site. I am pretty sure Diane et al can handle the torrent of ideas quite handily.
As stated several times Mr. Ailes WAS your so-called "medium" and he required no telepathic powers to carry out the ultraconservative bent they set forth at Faux's genesis. And there is no evidence to support your empty claim of some magic separation of money between the various parts of their corporate interests. The "walls" between Faux as "newsertainment" and the TV and movies is as much a firewall as the barriers between Super PACs and the campaigns........and, Gee, wasn't THAT the original point being discussed in the broadcast??
P.S.
This is not 1980 or 1880 or even 1780, as much as you'd like it. Demographics are significantly different and Gov Romney is not Gov Ronny.........he lacks everything a candidate really requires from "the vision thing" to anything resembling a jobs solution...not to mention having put himself wrongfooted on immigration and minorities in general. Of course we do have to give Mitt his vaunted ability to talk and act on all sides of every issue....just ask his primary opponents....ALL of them.
Evidence of blog-a-minute? Even us "stupids" can do a simple count of posts, Tovarich.
LibVet wrote:
"As stated several times Mr. Ailes WAS your so-called "medium" and he required no telepathic powers to carry out the ultraconservative bent they set forth at Faux's genesis. "
Actually you said it came from Nixon (ooohhhh EXTRA scary!). And Nixon was dead. Perhaps Ailes was just carrying the spirit of Nixon around waiting ... just waiting for the chance to spring it on an unsuspecting public!
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
And as for the "ultraconservative bent" there is absolutely no factual evidence that shows that. The opinion of every leftist out there does not count as fact no matter HOW MANY there are!
"And there is no evidence to support your empty claim of some magic separation of money between the various parts of their corporate interests."
Hey abigail! See above for another example of the "strawman" argument. In this case it's my "empty claim of some magic separation of money between the vearious parts of their corporate interests". Never said it, never implied it. I only stated that FNC did not start until 1996.
But even so, all I have are just independent studies by the likes of the Pew Research Center that show that FNC is actually the most "fair and balanced". Which was the point.
Like I said, you're going to believe what you want, LibVet. Fox is a bogey man for you and everyone on the left. Keeping it so, makes you feel better to claim it is biased right down to the core of your liberal soul. It doesn't really matter to you if it has any basis in fact or reality or not.
"This is not 1980 or 1880 or even 1780, as much as you'd like it."
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. -George Santayana.
What's that melody I hear? Is it LibVet whistling past the graveyard?
"Evidence of blog-a-minute?"
Except that's not what you said, LibVet. What you said was this:
"Your blog-a-minute style has SO many posts and SO little content. "
So THAT's what you've got to defend.
I stipulated that I post a lot - as do some others on the right. I also explained why. It's the "SO little content" I take exception to. That has no basis in fact ... again.
Bill5: Thanks for a post with content for thought. I see no direct replies to your post here or on the web site (linked by you in your initial post) where you 1st posted. Strikes me as odd since there are so few posts on this site or the other site with concrete ideas for discussion. Plenty of venom and shouting, but no actionable ideas like yours, or even shout-downs of your ideas. I expected to see at least one flamer turn up to shout at you, but don't even see that.
Thanks for providing some substance for us to talk about . . . I am thinking about your ideas.
I rarely post anywhere because there are so many reigning trolls hanging out sucking all the oxygen out of the room. Glad I checked back and saw your post with something to think and talk about.
The American Crossroads representative said we could see its contributers by signing on to the site. Was anyone able to view its contributers? How?
Hey Chuck,
I tried to look on American Crossroads for the donor list information. There is no simple link to finding it if it really is on the site. I cannot find a site map, any links to any other information and there is no search function for the site. It is by no means a simple thing to find unless you have to directly contact them to get said "just as easy for me to tell the listeners as it is for them to go to the site and find it." by that i mean, he fought to the end to not give the names and didn't, so does that mean the information is not there either?
Shadoboxxer and Chuck: Here are two links to the information you seek. There are links from these links to the various Federal filing (reporting) documents if you have the patience. Keep in mind that American Crossroads split off part of it's empire to form American Crossroads GPS, which is outside reporting requirements (detailed in one of the links). Hope this helps.
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending/super-pacs/dona...
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/08/american-crossroads/
eggie,
I must have struck a nerve....your double time posts trying without success to refute my statement that Roger Ailes carried out Nixon's wishes to have a conservative media source are evidence in spades. It matters little when Tricky Dick took the dirt nap.
Obama carried out Teddy K's wishes for health reform AFTER Teddy passed away. The death did not end the wishes at all. Remember comments made to Ted's widow after his passing?
As a long time admirer of William F. Buckley, I can truthfully say we liberals/progressives can support intelligent discussion and the polite interchange of ideas whether we agree or not. Do your proper research and you will find the truth: Faux IS a conservative mouth organ........and everyone KNOWS it.
Again, are you guys assigned to this site per word or per post? Maybe DR needs some paid supporters? Do you get pocket change or some real sheckels?
It would be logical to pay some bloggers to present a POV that opposes the so-called liberal stuff from NPR and DR......whom you all decry as a liberal source.