Forums - Politics Discussion - So fears over Citizens United was GREATLY overblown, yes?

It doesn't seem like there is any tangiable effect you can point excess campaign funding had.  Hell, it was an outright disaster for Romney despite him having a 2-3 to one Super Pac Spending advantage.



Once again it's further proof of the fact that to win an election you need enough money, however anything past that doesn't really do much.



Around the Network
...and the charisma to convince people that they actually matter and can effect or change anything

No one with half a brain thought otherwise. If it were possible to buy elections in that manner, all the bazillionaires who spend millions and millions of their own fortunes would win and we'd have Governor Meg Whitman and Senators Linda McMahon and John Raese. Elections are bought with public money, not with private money.

badgenome said:
No one with half a brain thought otherwise. If it were possible to buy elections in that manner, all the bazillionaires who spend millions and millions of their own fortunes would win and we'd have Governor Meg Whitman and Senators Linda McMahon and John Raese. Elections are bought with public money, not with private money.

Yep, we would have had President Ross Perot for eight years.



Proud member of the SONIC SUPPORT SQUAD

Tag "Sorry man. Someone pissed in my Wheaties."

"There are like ten games a year that sell over a million units."  High Voltage CEO -  Eric Nofsinger

amp316 said:
badgenome said:
No one with half a brain thought otherwise. If it were possible to buy elections in that manner, all the bazillionaires who spend millions and millions of their own fortunes would win and we'd have Governor Meg Whitman and Senators Linda McMahon and John Raese. Elections are bought with public money, not with private money.

Yep, we would have had President Ross Perot for eight years.

Steve Forbes in the 90s probably could've beaten Perot, and he did try in 96, but couldn't even beat Bob Dole in the primaries.


Hopefully the failure of super-mega-PACs like Crossroads GPS convinces people to not spend so much money on so much ad space in the future. This election was just oversaturated, by all sides.



Thanks for making voice acting an a-list pastime.

I wish I were a bird!

Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
amp316 said:
badgenome said:
No one with half a brain thought otherwise. If it were possible to buy elections in that manner, all the bazillionaires who spend millions and millions of their own fortunes would win and we'd have Governor Meg Whitman and Senators Linda McMahon and John Raese. Elections are bought with public money, not with private money.

Yep, we would have had President Ross Perot for eight years.

Steve Forbes in the 90s probably could've beaten Perot, and he did try in 96, but couldn't even beat Bob Dole in the primaries.


Hopefully the failure of super-mega-PACs like Crossroads GPS convinces people to not spend so much money on so much ad space in the future. This election was just oversaturated, by all sides.

Yeah.  When it comes to money really... if the third negative advertismenet about a candidate didn't change your mind... then the 50th won't either.

The Ross Perot analaogy is actually a pretty good one actually.  Ross Perot at first refused to do ANY campaign spending, thinking it was stupid when he could go on daytime talk shows for free.    When he started to lose popularity due to leaving the race... that's when he did start funding his campaign like crazy... and nothing really heappened.

Herman Cain, basically broke until he became popular, then as his cash rose, his popularity plummetted.

 

It's all about having just enough money to get your message out to the people, once you do, it's all up to the candidate. 

 

I think the only reason candidates keep fundraising later on in a campaign is because the media makes a huge story about how money should make a big difference and how a drop in donations must me "Such and such is in trouble!"

In otherwords, money becomes somewhat important... only because the media manufacturers a false narrative if the money drops.

 

Really political money would probably better be spent running trial programs of policies in swing states.  Set up your own privately funded version of Healthcare vouchers or "public option" healthcare in Ohio.  Then if it works, boast about how it shows that your idea works.

 

 

Granted you could argue such tactics could be used as "buying a vote", though really that's pretty much what democracy is.   Buying peoples votes.



Indeed. Even if it did have an impact, that would not be the fault of the money, nor even the ruling. If the money spent made you decide for whom to vote, rather than policy, the problem is not the money, the problem is you.

This is a free speech issue, which is so funny why left leaning people don't support it. Its hypocritical to me. Limiting speech is never the answer, it doesn't matter whose speech it is (including corporations)

The Troll DIce kickstarter is live!
http://trolldice.monument-games.com 

Monument Games, Inc.  Like us on Facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/MonumentGames

Nintendo Netword ID: kanageddaamen

Monument Games, Inc President and Lead Designer
Featured Game: Shiftyx (Android) https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.Shiftyx

Free ad supported version:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.ShiftyxFree

kanageddaamen said:
it doesn't matter whose speech it is (including corporations)

As an hardcore free speech supporter: Corporations should not be natural persons or have rights. Individuals in the corporation should be able to say what they like. There IS a big difference.

--

The practical problem with Citizens United is that billions of dollars were wasted on the election and the nation/news attention was sucked away for a year and a half out of a four year cycle. That's not grounds for reversing it (the Constitution not protecting corporations is) but from the outside it looks like insanity. Our elections are low-key and dull.



Soleron said:

As an hardcore free speech supporter: Corporations should not be natural persons or have rights. Individuals in the corporation should be able to say what they like. There IS a big difference.

--

The practical problem with Citizens United is that billions of dollars were wasted on the election and the nation/news attention was sucked away for a year and a half out of a four year cycle. That's not grounds for reversing it (the Constitution not protecting corporations is) but from the outside it looks like insanity. Our elections are low-key and dull.

The constitution does protect corporations... that whole freedom of the press thing. The government has no business deciding that this corporation (News Corp) is guaranteed a right to speak freely while that one (Wal-Mart) is not because of some arbitrary decision of what does and does not constitute "the press".

And I don't think Citizens United had anything to do with the ridiculously overblown nature of this election. The election was talked about nonstop for two fucking years straight because the media (i.e., those magical corporations whose right to free speech would be sacrosanct with or without Citizens United) decided to talk about it nonstop for two years straight.



Around the Network
except Romney got outspent by Obama

$874.6 million The amount that went toward Obama's re-election this election cycle, with the Obama campaign burning through $553.2 million, the DNC spending $263.2 million, and the biggest Obama Super PACS spending $58 million.

$844.6 million The amount that went toward Romney's candidacy this cycle, with the campaign spending $360.4 million, the RNC adding $284 million, and Super PACs adding $200 million.

$265 million The gap between the amount President Obama and Mitt Romney spent on TV ads through Oct. 29. In sum, the president spent far more. If you combine the ad spending, it amounts to more than one million television ads purchased by the campaigns and their supporters. The Wesleyan Media Project, which gathered the numbers, has a chart of this increase in ads.

the guy with the most money won, when Super Pacs get bigger and bigger I can see this trend continuing, the Super Pacs weren't big enough this time around but who knows in the future

note: the number raised change from site to site but Obama is in the lead in most of them

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/most-expensive-election-history-numbers/58745/