» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: ADH13 on 11/16/05 at 1:55 pm
I often see those on the left complaining about the corporations being locked in with the government, and how the government favors corporations, corporations favor republicans, etc. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this claim, although I am a bit confused.
I can understand how various companies/interests can be highly impacted by which type of government is in office. For example, Planned Parenthood benefits from a democrat structure while Intel benefits from a republican structure. The explanation for this belief is fairly clear, as the government has power to set standards which directly affect these companies.
Where I get a little confused is how do these companies affect who is elected? Since even corporate honchos and pro-choice gurus only get one vote a piece, I am assuming it is because of contributions made by these companies to the political campaigns.
So this is where I get a little lost. Where exactly does this money go? Ok, the candidates make trips around the country to give speeches. A trip around the country, stopping in, say, 10 major cities... would probably cost about $25,000, including luxury accomodations and transportation. Then their posses have to be fed.. maybe another $10,000. They need security, so say another $25,000. So, just to go on the high end, let's say their visits to various cities cost about $150,000. So where do the rest of all these millions of dollars go? I'd hate to think it is all spent on TV commercials which only serve to slam the other candidate.
Aside from wondering what exactly the campaign money is used for, I also wonder if it even does any good. I watch the Presidential Debates on tv. I read the election news in the paper. If a candidate came to my town, I would have no reason to go and see him repeat the same statements in person. Nor would it affect my vote. Same goes for the tv ads. They don't affect my vote either.
Anyone have any insight??
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: ADH13 on 11/16/05 at 3:59 pm
Well, I would imagine a large chunk of it goes towards bumper stickers, yard signs, flyers, etc.
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: Don Carlos on 11/16/05 at 4:25 pm
Air time is expensive, producing tv and radio ads is expensive, and if you think these ads don't influence voters, think again. Public appearances, in them selves, are not very effective, but the free publicity they generate on the news is. The probable Repug candidate for Vermont's senate seat next year is willing to spend, he says $5 million of his own $$$ on the campaign because $$$ matters i politics and he thinks he can buy that senate seat. We, the grass roots, will prove him wrong, but this is, after all, Vermont. And it is very clear that corporations get their $$$'s worth in terms of access and influence. That's why tyhey tend to give to both parties. Clearly, not every voter is mezmerized by the glitz, but large numbers are.
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: Tia on 11/16/05 at 7:33 pm
i think it's mostly airtime for commercials. by a mile.
then i bet it's logistics -- hiring workers, paying long-distance phone bills, renting convention space, gas for the winnebagos, junk like that. just the little miscellaneous blickies that add up when you're dragging this big to-do all around the country.
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 11/16/05 at 10:15 pm
And please explain why those on the Right boast of winning on their ideas. If their ideas sufficed, they wouldn't be so jealous about their campaign finances. As it is, the Right scream like stuck pigs when anyone dares suggest they do with less money and every candidate get free access to equal TV time.
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sauer/angry-smiley-005.gif
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 11/16/05 at 10:38 pm
You know banning all donations by the average Joe would be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court in a heartbeat. It's a violation of the first amendment.
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 11/16/05 at 10:49 pm
You know banning all donations by the average Joe would be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court in a heartbeat.
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: ADH13 on 11/16/05 at 11:11 pm
Then is any control of campaign finance constitutional???
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 11/16/05 at 11:18 pm
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to make contributions... I just wonder if the excessive amounts of money spent on campaigns actually have any impact on who wins the election.
Yes...but not nearly so effectively as voting machines from GOP-loyal corporations!
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-013.gif
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 11/16/05 at 11:26 pm
Yes...but not nearly so effectively as voting machines from GOP-loyal corporations!
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-013.gif
So are you going to end every post with a picture now? And you know Diebold had nothing to do with anything, Ohio is a red state and Florida has paper trails. Get over it. Gore and Kerry sucked.
Campaign finace reform was unconstitutional and going even futher would be even worse.
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 11/16/05 at 11:35 pm
Gore and Kerry sucked.
Wehehehelll, you'll get no argument from me on that statement. However, there is quite a lot of evidence to the contrary of the other things you said. I'd rather not be Mr. Stenographer and retype it all for you. If you're interest in voting machine chicanery, voter roll purging, and poll access inequality go hit up google. I don't think you're really interested in facts on these matters, so I don't think you'll hit google, and I could type 300 lines about it right here, but you wouldn't read them. And if you did read them, you'd go get the specious counter-points from front hall dot com or wherever it is you go!
As for the extra--board smilies, I got bored with the limited icons we have here on inthe00s, so I went out and got some o' my own! I realize I'm over-using them a bit, but I'll cool it once the novelty wears off!
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/mittelgrosse/medium-smiley-051.gif
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: danootaandme on 11/17/05 at 7:51 am
And now on the cynical/reality side
The money goes into the pockets of the congressmen(and women) before a vote comes up on the Senate
or House floor on legislation. The money goes into the pocket of the candidate who decides to drop out of
the race, or the pocket of the son or daughter for whom a job is created, or who has a business venture to
fund (like that nice stadium that was built for the Houston Astros, now what was that guys name again?) before
certain votes on certain issues come up. It is called lobbying, but what it is is the selling out of the American public
1-2-3.
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: Tia on 11/17/05 at 8:53 am
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to make contributions... I just wonder if the excessive amounts of money spent on campaigns actually have any impact on who wins the election.
here's an interesting read on the subject...
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/warchest.htm
i've seen statistics that campaigns are won in the vast majority of the cases by the candidate with the larger budget, so much so that we might as well leave off the whole "voting" part at the end and just give the seat to the candidate who raised the most. it's something ralph nader talks about a lot, because at point what you have is less a democratic process than a plutocracy. i dunno, does anyone know where to find statistics on that? those numbers (correspondence between who raised the most and how often they won) are pretty easy to come by.
i DO know that incumbent reelection rates are about what they were in the old soviet union. i think this is partly because it's easier for incumbents to raise money, partly because of partisan redistricting.
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: ADH13 on 11/17/05 at 11:42 am
The thing about incumbents being able to raise more $$, I'm more likely to give $$ to someone whose track record I can SEE rather than someone who is just TALKING about what they will/will not do or do/do not support.
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: Tia on 11/17/05 at 12:24 pm
I don't give money to political parties/candidates either.
Subject: Re: The Political Money Trail - Please explain.
Written By: Don Carlos on 11/17/05 at 3:11 pm
I do check the box, and I do contribute to candidates I really like - Bernie Sanders for one, and Dean for pres. Neither were/are beholden to the big corporate givers, nor to lobbiests, and both relied on small contributions. Here in Vermont we are struggling to get a constitutional campign finance law in place, and have made some progress. There are some limitations on how much an individual can give, and should be. And corporations should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. Corporations ARE NOT people, and not citizens, so they should stay out of politics (yeah, right).