This thread is §hit.

1) Is it? Then it shouldn't be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising.

(In fact in my opinion, nobody should be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising)

2) It's a way up the quote tree but I think I mentioned that there only seemed to be one researcher? (which was the last guy)

3) A few things here - quid pro quo does happen, politicians will support ideas that they wouldn't otherwise due to money. We actually had it happen in NZ just recently, a politician (John Banks who is a right scumbag and happily is so mired in scandal right now that it will be a miracle if he survives) was extremely anti-gambling until he happened to get a donation from a casino (which he abused a loophole to claim as an 'anonymous' donation). Now he never says anything against gambling...

The other idea that because the lobby groups somehow 'balance out' it's somehow ok, I disagree with that idea fundamentally. If something is wrong but happens to work that doesn't make it right. In any case I severely doubt that the environmental lobby has as much money as big oil, that the net freedom lobby has as much money as big media or that the health lobby has as much money as big tobacco.

1) You've given no actual credible reason as to why however.  Additionally, how does this apply to the internet?  How do you just stop people from making their own fliers and posting them?

It's a stupid thing to try to prevent because it's literally NOT preventable and just taking aribtrary means to prevent something that doesn't need prevention.

2) Read it again.  The very beggining has research as well.  Additionally... did you read the studies you linked?

They didn't really take into account causality...(unlike the other studies) and the second one if it was correct if anything makes it sound like a GOOD thing.  Since it suggests that it helps challengers win.  Which when you have something like a 90% retention rate on a congress pretty much EVERYBODY thinks sucks at it's job... sounds like a good thing.  

Though for causality, Frontrunners get more donations.  It's not that campaign spending creates votes, it's that votes create campaign spending!  Heck, look at the Republican Primaries... campaign contributions tend to lag behind actual poll results.  Herman Cain?  Broke as a joke, until AFTER he shot up in the polls, then he got a bunch of money... then he nosedived.

These studies don't take into account when and why someone got popular.

3) 

A) Are you sure that's the chain of events?  Or did he change his point of view, and then get support via casinos.  There has been quite a strong world wide "legalize gambling" initative going on ever since the global downturn.  Numerous polticians have changed their tune, for example in the US a number of states are suddenly getting casinos that beforehand weren't going to.

B)  How do you know that was what did it?    What voters care about is by far the biggest "Deformation" of what politicians believe... always has, always will be.  Even if the rare cases of quid pro quo, outside the incredibly stupid, it's only going to be about issues people don't care about anyway.

Nah, real quid pro quo ain't got nothing to do with Campaign Contributions.  It's way too small a thing to be needed.  Nah something like "Amakudari".  Life after political office is where Quid Pro Quo works out.  Something like Chris Dodd and his sweetheart loans getting preferential treatment and a Dodd Frank act that will make two big too fail even bigger, or Chris Dodd magically getting a job right outta congress as head of the RIAA.  Shit that's already illegal but happens anyway.

C) Great exception to the rule....

And while there isn't as much money on both sides... there is more then enough.  As like IQ, it's not a matter of how much you have, but having enough.

Though actually I would point out, the enviromental lobby probably actually does have more money... depending on the issue.  Since a lot of the enviromental lobby includes the oil lobby.  That's the other thing, the big "block" lobbies actually tend to lobby against each other.

For example, Dodd Frank, while complained about by banks... generally only gets universal complaints about the Voelker rule, which was added on seperately, because it gives US banks a competitive disadvantage against europeon banks.

The rest is pretty kept quiet about because it gives big banks a HUGE advantage over small banks.

Of course, if your really worried about government corruption, there is an easy way to stop it.  Limit what your government can do.  The less power, the less corruption.

You can't honestly buy into this, can you?  Yes, elections are now more competitive... because candidates that are in the pockets of various businesses are given more support than ever before.

Yeah, there's more competition, but the average persons' voice is made increasingly insignificant.  It is as undemocratic as you can get.

We should've been taking steps to remove money from politics, not pump more money in, so even poorer candidates have an equal chance of getting the public's attention as richer candidates.  Publicly funded elections, for instance.  

Now it's just lobbying groups spending inordinate sums to get their preferred candidate elected, and they'll lie through their teeth to do so.

Free speech shouldn't correlate with how rich you are.

1) Printing fliers and distributing them without spending money has nothing to do with campaign spending.

2) Whether it helps challengers or incumbants is inconsequential - either way it causes a bias in the political process.

3) A) Yep that was the order.

B) Whether it's issues that voters care about or not - it's still corruption and it's still a problem. Letting corporations campaign for politicians is practically inviting corruption.

C) Exception to the rule? I named three huge issues.

1) So if I print up 500,000,000 "Vote for Roseanne Barr for President" stickers and put them on peoples doors, that has nothing to do with campaign spendign/

2) Like i said,when you account for causation, it shows there isn't any effect.  However if you accept your studies at face value, it COUNTERACTS bias.  Incumbants have a HUGE bias advantage of being familiar and of their views being more well known.  Look at the incumbancy rates... I mean the democrats were "Slaughtered" and they had something like an 85% retention rate... with almost no priamry challenges.

To use an unfortunate comparison but the only one I can think of... it's like Affirmitive Action.   Is Affirmitive Action Racist?   Yeah, but it's counteracting already present racist issues.

3)  Three huge issues?  You named one guy... with no actual proof that was the case and there wasn't something else behind it.  One guy in... well however many people you guys in your government.  I'm sure it's more then like... 10 though.

I do agree that campaign donations should be public record, but that's all you need.

i have no idea what this thread is about and i read a bit of the responses and then skipped a lot of stuff so idk if my point has been addressed already...


corporations are not people/groups of people. they are property.

1) I'm pretty sure that would cost a metric fuckton of money. If all it cost was time of a volunteer then no it would not be campaign spending.

2) One study shows it has low effects, there are conflicting studies. Also now you're just getting into other reasons why the American political system is messed up. Trying to account for one messed up political bias with another messed up political bias is not fixing the system - it's putting chewing gum in the cracks and hoping it holds together. I don't know why you have such a huge advantage towards the incumbant (more it seems than most democracies) but fixing it by trying to bias the system towards the challenger is not a great idea.

3) I thought you were talking about the big oil/big media/big tobacco. Miscommunication =P

True, but in law, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons. Source Wiki

I have numerous problems with these statements.

1) Read Freakonomics. Money doesn't pick winners, it's the other way around. The money flocks to the candidates who are assumed to win.

2) It's not like there wasn't money in politics before these super-pacs, now it's more open (super-pacs must report all donations).

3) Publicly funded elections are bad news. If you consider how long the election period lasts in the United States, and how many elections there are (Presidential, Congressional, Governor, State Legislature, Mayoral, plus all the public servant roles), costs will rack up high.

4) Things won't become cheaper if the elections become publicly funded, if anything, the reverse will happen. There's a significant moral difference between choosing to donate your money to a candidate, rather than being forced to pay for all candidates through taxation.

5) Publicly funded elections don't stop anything. We have them in the UK, our defence secretary is still working with lobbyists, News Corp are still buying their way past competition laws, Goldman Sachs are still taking all the top positions in our central bank.