Mr Khan said:
rocketpig said:
Kasz216 said:
Weird, my post got lost.
Either way, i'm not sure. I mean, i'd think it'd be just as disasterous the other way. I mean 24/7 news stations and news in general would be exempt. So wouldn't it just be a matter of them leverging advertising buying on story reporting and story outlooks?
Maybe more networks like Obama's from the last elections pop up. More news stories made about problems that hit one candidate harder then the other etc.
At least campaign adds are campaign adds.
Also, a lot of evidence tends to point to correlation going the other way. That is, money follows popularity, not the other way around. Seems more likely to me that more often then not money just flocks to the candidate that seems viable and best fits there views.
Reserch seems to suggest that there is just a money level you need to be at to qualify, and beyond that the money doesn't help. (or if it does in other studies, only newcomers).
So really, I wonder if it's a lot of money spent over nothing. I mean heck, even if it just helps challengers to incumbats... considering the 85% renewal rate or whatever... sounds good to me.
|
I see it as a problem with incumbents, not necessarily first-timers. After a time, incumbent politicians are in bed with so many lobbyists that they need to keep scratching backs to keep that money flowing. Look at SOPA. Almost universally, the public thought it was a terrible idea. After a time, Republicans started bailing out from under the bill. Why? They don't get Hollywood money. Their interest was minimized. But those Democrats who supported the bill and received Hollywood money, they stood firm with the bill. Shit, those dirty motherfuckers at the MPAA actually threatened Congress because of it.
That's when you know corporate America has too much influence in politics. Instead of backing off after the public went nuts over the bill, the MPAA turned into bullies, threatening those who stopped supporting the bill. The more corporate money there is in politics, the more the will of the people is marginalized. Everybody should have a say in politics but when you're dealing with entities that have billions of dollars to throw at a problem, their influence needs to be limited by somebody and elected politicians won't do it because they're the ones receiving the money.
|
I'd like to see where the MPAA threatened congress. Not because i don't believe you, just interested in seeing how low they'd stoop.
|
Dude, all you'd have to do is type "MPAA Threatens Congress."
Best part of all? MPAA Spokesman? Chris Dodd. (I still don't know why people think Dodd Frank will hurt big banks when it was written by the guy who was investigated for taking bribes to renovate his house.)
"Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake. …
I would caution people don’t make the assumption that because the quote 'Hollywood community' has been historically supportive of Democrats, which they have, don’t make the false assumptions this year that because we did it in years past, we will do it this year. These issues before us -- this is the only issue that goes right to the heart of this industry."
http://www.techspot.com/news/47160-mpaa-threatens-congress-over-sopa-says-blackout-abuse-of-power.html
