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 In many ways, they have superseded the party.”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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @08:36AM
There is about 146,000,000* registered voters, so it is more like six dollars, one vote. That would make a pretty good unit of measure. Earning 6,000 USD would be paid as one KiloKoch. Alternatively we could pass out pins on election day that says "I put my six dollars of Koch in!"
* http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/ [statisticbrain.com]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 28 2015, @08:54AM
Someone has updated the math:
In that case, the two Koch brothers intend to spend an average of $8.99 per voter. Which is an ironic number, because it follows the time-honored convention among merchants to make their products seem cheaper than they actually are. Hence, instead of sounding like the cost per voter of buying an election, $8.99 sounds like the price of a pound of steak at your local grocer. Appropriate, in that these billionaires are effectively planning to turn American democracy into ground meat.
So welcome to the Koch Brothers Political Butcher Shop. But be careful, because the Koch minions likely will have added polluted water and chemical fillers to that ideological Kochburger they are working hard to get you to eat. Worse, after the election they likely will decide to put most of you through their voracious meatgrinder, too. Yes, it's true: Soylent Koch is people!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/27/1360575/--8-99-In-the-United-Satrapy-of-the-Koch-Brothers-your-vote-is-worth-that-much [dailykos.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday January 28 2015, @12:44PM
That article seems fairly ignorant in that the money they spend isn't going to be piled up and burned like a religious offering, its going to be blown on advertising and purchased media, and god help us, paid political astroturfers on the internet. The article has a fit that the money is being spent on employed, educated, mostly white male people instead of minorities. I'm not personally agonized by that.
The other ignorant part of the article is only 1 in 4 voters matter, down from 1 in 3 a couple years back. So its more like $32 per important voter.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/percentage-of-swing-voters-declines-compared-to-four-years-ago/ [pewresearch.org]
There's no point in spending money to either convince blacks to vote for democrats (they are going to no matter what) or try to convince blacks to vote for republicans (they are not going to no matter what). So that groups concerns and interests are completely and utterly ignored. Their votes are owned, completely, so they can be marginalized. In a similar way there's a quisling bubba living nearby me who had a giant W flag on his garage door and all the usual brownshirt stuff on his lawn (signs etc) so again theres no point in anyone on either side spending a penny on that guy or even pretending to care about his interests, he's going to vote R no matter what and no matter how much is spent. The swing voters are the only voters who matter.
Its interesting that the propaganda campaign for decades is we can't be angry at our evil overlords because we selected them, although the reality is only about an eighth of the population decides the election, and the other 7/8ths of the population do not matter to the selection process.
(Score: 2) by ticho on Wednesday January 28 2015, @01:06PM
"That article seems fairly ignorant in that the money they spend isn't going to be piled up and burned like a religious offering, its going to be blown on advertising and purchased media, and god help us, paid political astroturfers on the internet. The article has a fit that the money is being spent on employed, educated, mostly white male people instead of minorities. I'm not personally agonized by that."
No, I'm sorry, but you do not get to spin it like this. The money is not spent on these people (as in, these people will not benefit from said spending), it is being spend to annoy these people. In the end, I'd say that effect of this is more harmful than if the money was physically piled up and burned.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 28 2015, @01:20PM
I meant the employees at the TV station, advertising execs, webmasters, etc, not so much the unfortunate spam recipients. The article seemed to be having a fit that the money was not going to pay the salary of social workers and community organizers.
Although you are correct, regardless of who's getting employment out of the propaganda machine, its basically a public nuisance noise generator.
(Score: 2) by ticho on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:53PM
Ah, yes, when you put it that way, your point does make sense. :) Thanks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @01:51PM
While the point about swing voters makes sense for the general election, the primaries are unlikely to appear as pre-decided, although fewer people vote in them. While not a fix for the broken two party system in the US, the primaries do serve to make things a bit more interesting and decide which ideas supported by each party get more weight. (Don't worry, ideas that help the American people in general like, say, reforming the way elections are run aren't likely to be supported by either party.)
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 28 2015, @05:15PM
VLM, for me you are the canary in the coal mine for the legitimacy, or perceived legitimacy, of this system. You're not ethnically or racially or demographically or whatever pre-disposed to disbelieve the conventional wisdom in the United States. But you're intelligent and skilled and you're just not buying it anymore.
Me, I'm descended from the people who stuck with George Washington at Valley Forge because they just really, really fucking hated the English. I am disposed on a genetic level to despise blue-blood pretenders. So it stands to reason that somebody like me reflexively hates and distrusts the kind of people who run this system now. When they lose somebody like you, the reasonable, sober, non-partisan guys like you, it's a different ballgame.
Guys like me will always be ornery. We can't help it. But when guys like you get fed up, the world changes.
Washington DC delenda est.