Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday January 28 2015, @05:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the mo-money-mo-problems dept.

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 In many ways, they have superseded the party.”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.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday January 28 2015, @07:57PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Wednesday January 28 2015, @07:57PM (#138992)

    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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday January 29 2015, @05:26PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday January 29 2015, @05:26PM (#139227)

    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

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Thursday January 29 2015, @07:49PM (#139266)

      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