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 In many ways, they have superseded the party.”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 ikanreed on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:45PM
If he raises that much money, at least quietly wonder to yourself who is giving him that money and why. Fark is a big site, but it hasn't made him a rich enough man to bankroll a major election.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday January 28 2015, @06:22PM
You are mistaking the direction of the arrow of causality. Most on the left seem to, as do too many low info peeps on the Right.
Imagine you are George Soros or one of the (Boo! Hiss!) Koch Brothers. You have money, you want political influence on issues you care about. If it is an issue about to be voted on next month it makes sense to send your dark minions to DC and find squishy supporters of the opposition position and buy them off. Paying the committed of either side at that point gets you little or nothing.
On the other hand, if you want to elect a candidate you -DO NOT- do that. You want somebody who will stay bought, better still is someone who already agrees with most of your positions passionately enough you won't even have to keep paying them and can move on to putting your efforts elsewhere. So if somebody you agree with is quietly collecting money you have little cause to worry... assuming you -REALLY- know what their positions are. Their money will be coming from like minded folks, it is a good thing. it is how the system is supposed to work. Like minded, civic minded people coming together to change the system by the rules.
Low info types can't seem to distinguish that critical difference, between buying off sitting officials and pushing alternate candidates to replace them.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 28 2015, @07:24PM
Thanks for talking down to me and explaining how your gross simplification totally rebuts the gross simplification I didn't actually make.