I don't think you got the point. Politicians get more money because they're more popular. I.E. Them getting more money is a symptom of their popularity. The money isn't changing the election results; it's reflecting popular views of the parties. Money was no more of a factor in 2010 as it was in 2008. The money went predominantly to candidates who were popular and therefore most likely to win anyway.
Hope is the denial of reality
You don't get my point. Starting up "non-profits" (with patriotic sounding names) with the intent to avoid campaign finance limits, and use that "soft money" to run attack ads (or billboards, or other propaganda) is misleading. It's not fair to the voter, the public, maybe even some donors. When that money gets funneled through groups set up by Karl Rove or the Koch brothers, union groups or party leaders, it's essentially skirting the laws. It's like tax evasion via IRS loopholes.
And lookie here, even American Crossroads (set up by Rove) claims the same thing! Their other group Crossroads GPS apparently doesn't share this "value".
http://americancrossroads.org/valuesThird, setting a new direction for America means a new paradigm of transparency. Politicians and the subculture that supports them want government to be a “black box” to its citizens: unknowable, inscrutable, and above all, unaccountable. President Obama and the Democrat Congress want to “reform” everything but themselves. Back-room health care deals, “stimulus” giveaways, fraudulent budget assumptions and special interest “pork” projects all need to be brought into the light of day for voters to see and judge for themselves. At American Crossroads, our commitment to transparency is expressed in the fact that we disclose our financial support each month. And we hope you will proudly stand with others who have “put themselves on the line”—literally—to support our mission of restoring America’s commitment to individual liberty, limited government, free enterprise and a strong national defense.
The data give your notion the lie. Proportionately most donors are not small. It is big special interests that make up the lions' share, and they don't care about popularity.Originally Posted by Loki
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnewsThe Center for Responsive Politics calculates that out of 58 candidates who used $500,000 or more of their money on federal races in 2010, fewer than one in five won. Eight of the top 10 self-funders this cycle lost...
OMG, money destroying politics.
Hope is the denial of reality
Wow, way to distort again. All that says is that self-funders lose. This is hardly surprising, since they are usually from outside and think that, for some reason, being a CEO makes you experienced to be a legislator. But we've been talking about how money is used by special interests to influence politicians.
Honest much? Or just poor reading comprehension?
Ah, money is only bad when you say it's bad. Got you.
Hope is the denial of reality
Stop lying about what I've said, Loki. How do justify such shit?
Once again, stop projecting. Back on ignore you go.
Hope is the denial of reality
Thank God!
http://www.psocommons.org/policyandi...?sending=11216
http://www.psocommons.org/policyandi...?sending=11216
Edit: And here's a piece about the role of outside money in this election:
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/11...ac-a-mole.html
Last edited by Loki; 11-05-2010 at 12:08 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Still not actually posting arguments, but asking forum members to run off and read reams of opinion papers?
Those aren't sources I'd call "media". Did you just ignore my edit, or what? I thought you'd give a link to a school that offers Behavioral Politics as a major or minor, like Behavioral Economics.
The first journal link is about Web 2.0 implementation. "This participatory and conversational culture, like the Internet itself, reaches beyond national borders and cultures, reshapes communicational hierarchies, so creating a new set of communicative rules. Web 2.0 applications raises significant questions for political parties and individual candidates in terms of how they might use the Internet for building relationships with activists, supporters and possibly floating voters."
The second journal link is about regulation. "This article examines the historical balance of federalism in the regulation of communications services, healthcare, and energy, identifies novel issues that have arisen and that are likely to arise as broadband is used to transform these services, and proposes a framework for efficiently and effectively addressing these issues."
Neither are about studies in human voting behavior, what information people read (or don't read), how opinions are shaped, motivations for voting, party affiliation loyalty, propaganda influence, those kinds of things.
Consumer product companies, marketers and advertisers do studies on consumer behavior and how people pick shampoo, FFS! Product placement, valuable sponsorships from popular sports figures or Hollywood stars. Even colors and package design have a purpose to affect behavior. "Media" picks that up and we can read it from CNN or newspapers.
Your third link is more about how money has no influence in elections. Because gee, look how much Meg Whitman spent to lose. This was the most expensive mid-term in history. Was the final tally 3 or 4 BILLION dollars spent? Sounds like a lot of money that does....essentially nothing. What a waste, huh? (And they ran on fiscal management and balancing budgets)
Exactly. Money buys influence. It buys advertising that influences voters, and it buys alliances for lobbyists that influence legislation.
He thesis may be that "money has no influence because there the other candidate also has tons of money." But the point is that American politics is an arms race of influence peddling, where you'll lose if you don't keep up with the Joneses (the Gingriches?) wrt fundraising.
During the last US presidential election, we had reports of how this or that candidate had to pull out or under threat of pulling out because the money ran out (like Hillary Clinton, for example).
Anyone care to explain to me how this does not equal "money buys the presidency"?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Returning to political contributions as speech, and disclosures. Keith Olbermann was suspended without pay, for having donated to 3 Democratic candidates. His employment contract with NBC/msnbc required disclosure and permission from management first. Their statement says that policy is to keep their journalists and news reporters neutral, without conflict of interest.
1) He's not a journalist or a news reporter. He's a talk show host with an obvious political bias toward progressives and Democrats. It's opinion, not news.
2) Would that neutrality policy also apply to financial 'reporters' on cnbc who discuss Wall Street, stock analysis, and economic policy?
3) A better contract might be full disclosures on their web site, like cnbc financial writers do for their investment holdings.
4) Another example of why political ideas, affiliations and donations should be included in anti-discrimination employment laws.
Most financial writers don't actively trade stocks or keep their assets in blind trusts or index funds.
But more broadly, I think the idea that Olbermann was a "journalist" is as offensive as suspending him for violating journalist ethics. He's a pundit and most people would probably be surprised to hear he wasn't donating to candidates.
Most television news organizations have rules about journalists contributing to political campaigns, but some make distinctions between their anchors and reporters and those offering opinions. For example, in the aftermath of the Olbermann suspension, CNN said its policy “prohibits full-time employees from making contributions to political parties or candidates,” but a CNN executive acknowledged that these rules did not cover part-time employees or political contributors.They'll need to do a better job defining news anchor, journalist, reporter, contributor, commentator....Mr. Olbermann’s transgression in making the donation was compounded by the fact that he had anchored the election coverage on MSNBC, and had not just worked as a commentator on the results.
Here's a private employer limiting free speech/political donations and tying that to their employment. Wasn't there earlier argument that disclosure itself was bad, because it might affect employment?
Yeah, except the discussion was about outside funding, wasn't it? Which is presumably usually more than $500.000. Do you have a similar statistic about overal spending on a campaign?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
There was a link later on in the thread that talked about outside funding. The only thing that link doesn't mention is outside funding by issue groups (i.e. not directly tied to campaigns). And considering that most outside funding targeted politicians who spent about $1.5 million (even if they were outspent), it's really hard to claim that money cost them the election.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote