SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Nicholas Confessore reports at the New York Times that the Koch Brothers and their political network plan to spend close to $900 million in the 2016 election, an unparalleled effort by coordinated outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history. The group’s budget reflects the rising ambition and expanded reach of the Koch operation, which has sought to distinguish itself from other outside groups by emphasizing the role of donors over consultants and political operatives. Hundreds of conservative donors recruited by the Kochs gathered over the weekend for three days of issue seminars, strategy sessions, and mingling with rising elected officials. These donors represent the largest concentration of political money outside the party establishment, one that has achieved enormous power in Republican circles in recent years. “It’s no wonder the candidates show up when the Koch brothers call,” says David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to Mr. Obama. “That’s exponentially more money than any party organization will spend. In many ways, they have superseded the party.”
Espousing a political worldview that protects free speech and individual and property rights with equal protection for everyone under the law Koch says: “It is up to us. Making this vision a reality will require more than a financial commitment. It requires making it a central part of our lives.” Told of the $889 million goal, Mark McKinnon, a veteran GOP operative who has worked to rally Republican support to reduce the role of money in politics, quipped: “For that kind of money, you could buy yourself a president. Oh, right. That’s the point.”
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 28 2015, @06:02AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday January 28 2015, @01:08PM
wasted? if you owned a tv station or media company (ie, someone who receives money for paid ads) you'd have an entirely different POV.
of course, those people are SCUM.
money and politics. we all know its not a good mix. and yet, we don't do a single thing to stop it. in fact, we roll around in it, like pigs in shit.
there is no hope for us and our greed-based system. it just has to burn itself out. but sadly, I see no way to stop this juggernaut.
YES, the money was wasted. all the good that could be done with it, and it goes to fat-cats pockets who reap it in every election cycle. parasites!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rivenaleem on Wednesday January 28 2015, @01:31PM
While I don't want to argue with the word "wasted", I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on where the money goes. I understand the The Broken Window Parable [wikipedia.org]. Does it apply here? Is this money truly wasted if it provides employment to people, if the money is just moving around?
Yes, there'll be a lot of physical waste (posters etc) and things made that will never be used again, like TV adverts, but a lot of this goes to employ people. Some will say the money could be better spent housing/feeding homeless/starving people etc, but does an election, like a war, stimulate the economy somehow too?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:55PM
Hmm I would say yes it is wasted money and broken window fallacy is a good way to put it.
The job pays 400k a year for the rest of your life. Lets say you become the youngest president ever at 35 (min age). You live to a ripe old age of 80. That is 45 years of making 400k. About 18 million. If you are spending 900 million to get back 18 million that is a waste of money. You are not getting a ROI.
I personally like this book when it comes to discussing the broken window fallacy.
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/ [steshaw.org]
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap08p1.html [steshaw.org]
For 900 million they could START many companies and run them for years that actually produces goods.
A good way to look at if it is a waste of money is if it produces wealth or not. It makes something. The only way you can create wealth is by making goods. There is no other way. You can GET wealth by manipulation (such as playing arbitrage games with prices in the stock market). In this case they are not making anything of lasting value. It is all words and 'air time' to all be thrown away when done with. It is designer garbage.
I am also 100% sure the democrats will be spending similar sums of money on Mrs Clinton.
I am also sure the RNC will be calling me 2-3 times a week for money. As the koch brothers are not going to bear that whole burden. They will do it thru fundraising. Never *EVER* give any party any money. They will never stop asking for more. Worst 50 dollars I ever spent.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:35PM
Not wasted, its an investment. For a mere 1 billion dollars, the Koch brothers hope to buy the office of the most powerful person in the world. Think of how much money they will make.
As any investment, there is some risk. They might not win. If they were smart, they would invest this money in such a way to make people more sympathetic to their cause for the next election.
But instead giant assholes like the Koch brothers, Karl Rove and the entirety of Fox News makes me even less likely to vote Republican than I did for the past 3 elections.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday January 28 2015, @05:42PM
But instead giant assholes like the Koch brothers, Karl Rove and the entirety of Fox News makes me even less likely to vote Republican than I did for the past 3 elections.
Lemme guess, you haven't ever voted Republican and never will. You object not at all to the larger (yes, go look it up) political contributions of George Soros, Tom Steyer, NBC News, the NYT, pretty much every empty headed speaker of lines written by other people in Hollywierd and so on offend you not at all. Your position can be summed up as "I want everyone who I don't like to be forced to STFU."
The only 'Campaign Finance Law' we need is the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make NO law...."
Back in '08 I wanted John McCain (infamous for McCain/Feingold) to come near enough to make it practical to drive to one of his events and hope to get in one question. "What part of 'Congress shall make NO law' are you having trouble understanding? English Motherf*cker, do you speak it?"
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday January 28 2015, @07:57PM
I live in an area that is so overwhelmingly democrat (for national elections, anyhow) that I feel fine voting for whatever 3rd party candidate. On the local level, where I think votes matter more and party matters less, I only vote in races where I know something about at least one of the candidates, and I am more likely to vote for the Republican. Of course the straight-ticket voters will manage to fuck things up anyhow.
I don't understand your point about "Congress shall make NO law". So you would rather the system allow any amount of campaign money to be spent any way they want? With SuperPACs that is effectively what we have today.
Hell I would be totally fine with people spending whatever they want on campaigns if people were not stupid enough to fall for the standard political campaign lies.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday January 29 2015, @05:26PM
It would beat the current system. Listen to the news and think. They are evaluating the Republican field (there really isn't any discussion on the other side yet) almost entirely in terms of whether they can raise the fifty mil or so 'required' to even get into the game and survive the Iowa Caucuses. With the max contribution limit it means an endless series of meetings with donors, bundlers and the money chase. Not policy speeches, building a ground operation, shaking babies and kissing hands (oh, that isn't right...) or anything we associate with 'campaigning.' I say it would be far better if a leader could just find a couple of megadonors who could just write a ten million dollar check.
And you can disagree. So long as neither of us use the State to impose our policy choice by force you remain free to deeply suspect a candidate who did such a thing and prefer one funded by twenty thousand millionaires.
And if enough voters made knowing who the donors were a voting issue they would post the list on their website, otherwise not. I used to be in the unlimited donations with instant full disclosure camp. After the Brendan Eich incident and the harassment of a waitress from her job for a lousy $100 donation, I dropped the idea of mandatory disclosure. There is a valid and compelling reason for donors to sometimes want to remain private.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Thursday January 29 2015, @07:49PM
I see what you are saying. What you are proposing would not make things any worse. But I am not convinced this will change corruption. Already candidates pander to high value donors, in order to get money to fund advertisements to win over the masses of votes actually needed.
You are totally right in the system today is entirely silly and needs to change. When I worked for a megacorp I remember getting these emails from corporate begging all employees to donate the maximum to their corporate SuperPAC fund so they could bribe people or whatever it is they did with it. I found it completely insane that anyone other than the CXX level people would put their own money into this.
If people were not so easily swayed by the advertisements, then it would not matter how much money a candidate spends. I know ranting at the plebs for being idiots is pointless, but... well...
The thing I am sick of is that the money has become more important than the platform. At the rate we are going the presidency simply goes to the person that spent the most.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @09:46PM
Well, I don't speak for nitehawk but I largely agree with him. And, yes, I have voted Republican in past elections. I can't tell you how much contempt I have for people who so brazenly try to buy an election, no matter which side of the aisle they sit on. Frankly, I'm not sure how to solve this problem but I do think that the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, et al could put their money to better use than buying elections.