|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21564208 - 04/18/15 03:16 PM (9 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Which contribution would have the larger influence on Hillary's success?
I don't see that being the issue. The real issue is which contribution would have a larger influence on Hillary's actions in office. That's really what we're talking about here, isn't it?
A multi-million contribution to "Ready for Hillary" would have FAR greater influence on Hillary's actions in office than a meager $2,600 in direct contributions. Do you deny that? Why would billionaires donate huge sums to any Super Pac if it didn't influence decision making? Why has the current Congress (both parties) sold out to big money?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
I don't know. I'm of the opinion that after one spends a certain amount, additional spending is largely ineffective. If that's true, more money won't buy more influence
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21565516 - 04/18/15 09:20 PM (9 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: I don't know. I'm of the opinion that after one spends a certain amount, additional spending is largely ineffective. If that's true, more money won't buy more influence
So the billions that will be spent on the next election will be largely wasted? Difficult to prove, I know, but I've seen public opinion change when one party outspends the other. I'm of the opinion that since both sides now care more about appeasing their big donors than the American public, money is what matters most.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
I'm not sure that they do care more about appeasing the big donors than the American public.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty




Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,470
Last seen: 52 minutes, 56 seconds
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21567581 - 04/19/15 11:34 AM (9 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Which contribution would have the larger influence on Hillary's success?
I don't see that being the issue. The real issue is which contribution would have a larger influence on Hillary's actions in office. That's really what we're talking about here, isn't it?
The contributions that have a larger influence on her taking office are the contributions that will have the most influence in her actions in office. They are the same thing.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21567585 - 04/19/15 11:37 AM (9 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
To an extent that's true, but if I'm correct that additional expenditures above a certain point are ineffective at changing the outcome of an election, they aren't the same. This is true because 10 million spent independently and ineffectively will have no persuasive power on the candidate. 10 million donated to the actual candidate's campaign, even if spent ineffectively, will have a persuasive effect.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty




Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,470
Last seen: 52 minutes, 56 seconds
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil] 1
#21567600 - 04/19/15 11:39 AM (9 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: I'm not sure that they do care more about appeasing the big donors than the American public.
They do, have you been paying attention to politics for the past couple decades? If they cared about us at all, we wouldnt be looking at a choice between Hillary and Jebb. Please, enlighten us as to how the government is more on the side of the people than big money these days.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty




Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,470
Last seen: 52 minutes, 56 seconds
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21567623 - 04/19/15 11:42 AM (9 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: To an extent that's true, but if I'm correct that additional expenditures above a certain point are ineffective at changing the outcome of an election, they aren't the same. This is true because 10 million spent independently and ineffectively will have no persuasive power on the candidate. 10 million donated to the actual candidate's campaign, even if spent ineffectively, will have a persuasive effect.
Ok, I see what you're saying. The point is, some people can afford to donate 10 million, 99% of people can't. Maybe their influence doesn't continually go up, but my influence is unequal to the koch brothers. I should have the same influence on politicians as the koch brothers.
Aside from that, just the fact that someone is willing to fork up 10 mill on a politicians behalf, demonstrates that they will be willing to do it again, if the candidate makes them happy. Therefore, I personally believe, at least a first term president, will be chasing those dollars, regardless of the impact they had in the first election.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
Edited by Bigbadwooof (04/19/15 11:48 AM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof] 1
#21567817 - 04/19/15 12:16 PM (9 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21568011 - 04/19/15 01:07 PM (9 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Which contribution would have the larger influence on Hillary's success?
I don't see that being the issue. The real issue is which contribution would have a larger influence on Hillary's actions in office. That's really what we're talking about here, isn't it?
The contributions that have a larger influence on her taking office are the contributions that will have the most influence in her actions in office. They are the same thing.
Of course, that is obvious to most people just like its obvious to the politicians
>>Enlil said: I'm not sure that they do care more about appeasing the big donors than the American public.
>They do, have you been paying attention to politics for the past couple decades? If they cared about us at all, we wouldnt be looking at a choice between Hillary and Jebb. Please, enlighten us as to how the government is more on the side of the people than big money these days.
Very true, its rare to see common sense these days. They throw us a bone now and then but the meat goes to the big donors. It will be even worse if hillbilly gets in since she has had to sell herself to all comers to raise the cash. Jeb is doing much the same but at least is rich to start with. Thumbs down on both those turkeys.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil] 1
#21568027 - 04/19/15 01:10 PM (9 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: 10 million spent independently and ineffectively will have no persuasive power on the candidate. 10 million donated to the actual candidate's campaign, even if spent ineffectively, will have a persuasive effect.
I strongly disagree; I think it's the same. If I donate $50 million to "Ready for Hillary", you can be damn sure she's going to know about it, and that she'll want to understand what the "Ready for Hillary" Super Pac is all about. If I donate directly to her, it would only be $2,600 and she'd care a lot less about my concerns than the concerns of the $50 million contributor to "Ready for Hillary".
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Then we disagree. I'll find a way to get over it.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center


Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Enlil said: 10 million spent independently and ineffectively will have no persuasive power on the candidate. 10 million donated to the actual candidate's campaign, even if spent ineffectively, will have a persuasive effect.
I strongly disagree; I think it's the same. If I donate $50 million to "Ready for Hillary", you can be damn sure she's going to know about it, and that she'll want to understand what the "Ready for Hillary" Super Pac is all about. If I donate directly to her, it would only be $2,600 and she'd care a lot less about my concerns than the concerns of the $50 million contributor to "Ready for Hillary".
Of course, I'm amazed anyone doubts such a thing. If you have $10m to donate, you will get a meeting with the bitch herself and will be able to extract specific commitments I'm sure. $50m is not going to be handed over all at once, probably not the $10m either. They don't trust politicians that much. Its usually structured a bit, some now, some after progress, the rest with results. Of course a candidate might lose and can't deliver much progress so they get promises. Running for reelection shakes loose the most money because they can deliver on promises right away and have the best chance of winning.
Funny thing is zap also spouts this nonsense about contributions and in kind spending having no influence on the candidate.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Stonehenge]
#21568438 - 04/19/15 03:02 PM (9 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Enlil said: 10 million spent independently and ineffectively will have no persuasive power on the candidate. 10 million donated to the actual candidate's campaign, even if spent ineffectively, will have a persuasive effect.
I strongly disagree; I think it's the same. If I donate $50 million to "Ready for Hillary", you can be damn sure she's going to know about it, and that she'll want to understand what the "Ready for Hillary" Super Pac is all about. If I donate directly to her, it would only be $2,600 and she'd care a lot less about my concerns than the concerns of the $50 million contributor to "Ready for Hillary".
Of course, I'm amazed anyone doubts such a thing. If you have $10m to donate, you will get a meeting with the bitch herself and will be able to extract specific commitments I'm sure. $50m is not going to be handed over all at once, probably not the $10m either. They don't trust politicians that much. Its usually structured a bit, some now, some after progress, the rest with results. Of course a candidate might lose and can't deliver much progress so they get promises. Running for reelection shakes loose the most money because they can deliver on promises right away and have the best chance of winning.
Funny thing is zap also spouts this nonsense about contributions and in kind spending having no influence on the candidate. 
At no point have I ever said they have no influence. I have said it is protected by the Constitution. And it is.
I have asked this question repeatedly but nobody ever answers. Why should the NY Times be exempt from your proposed free speech strictures? They are a pamphlet of Democrat Party propaganda. They are a corporation. (evil by definition). They engage in political speech and almost every utterance should be considered a campaign contribution to the Democrat Party.
--------------------
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty




Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,470
Last seen: 52 minutes, 56 seconds
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21568892 - 04/19/15 04:58 PM (9 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said: Please, enlighten us as to how the government is more on the side of the people than big money these days.
Lets see. Congress, in 2014 and 2015 passed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Risk_Insurance_Act Clay Hunt SAV Act Slain Officer Family Support Act of 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Relief_Appropriations_Act,_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic_and_All-Hazards_Preparedness_Reauthorization_Act_of_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_Fish_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOR_VETS_Act_of_2013
That's just a small list quickly put together. Can you honestly argue that any of those are about serving big money?
Most of the issues on your list are things that big business doesn't have much interest in, one way or the other. Are you honestly telling me that you believe the federal government is not influenced by money?
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21568908 - 04/19/15 05:03 PM (9 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I've never made that claim. It's obvious, however, that Congress spends an awful lot of time on things that are not in service of big business. Far more than half are things that really have no significant effect on big business at all.
Besides, this discussion is pointless. Even if we assume that there is a linear and causal relationship between campaign funds and election results (big assumption) and that politicians serve the biggest donors (another big assumption), none of that matters. There is literally no way to limit independent expenditures on political speech without creating a group of people in this country with an obscene, almost absolute, power.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Bigbadwooof
Snitterbundem The Dirty




Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 14,470
Last seen: 52 minutes, 56 seconds
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21570083 - 04/19/15 10:54 PM (9 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: I've never made that claim. It's obvious, however, that Congress spends an awful lot of time on things that are not in service of big business. Far more than half are things that really have no significant effect on big business at all.
Besides, this discussion is pointless. Even if we assume that there is a linear and causal relationship between campaign funds and election results (big assumption) and that politicians serve the biggest donors (another big assumption), none of that matters. There is literally no way to limit independent expenditures on political speech without creating a group of people in this country with an obscene, almost absolute, power.
Have a look at this link: http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/11/does-more-campaign-money-actually-buy-more-votes-investigation/71473/
The effects of campaign contributions is significant. It is one of the easiest things to measure, as far as factors contributing to the success of a candidate, and there is a lot of data available. The relationship between campaign spending and success, is actually surprisingly linear. I'm sure this has a lot to do with a public who is generally uninformed, and votes for the person who is blasted in their face more. Campaign spending is especially significant in close races.
As far as the correlation between donors and politicians, we see a lot of 'revolving door' scenarios in our political arena, which I believe is a blatantly clear demonstration of the relationship here. There really are so many things to dredge up regarding the effect of political spending on corporate profits, and there is a lot of data that shows corellations there too. I will hunt some of that down, if you'd like.
As far as making decisions on non-business related affairs, that's what their lazy asses are paid to do, and the last couple lineups we've had in congress haven't really even gotten much done.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell Every one of you should see this video. "Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed" - Robert Burns
 
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,514
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Bigbadwooof]
#21570113 - 04/19/15 11:02 PM (9 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Your link doesn't establish causation, only correlation. It's unclear whether spending causes more support, or more support causes more donations. That really is the question, and I think it's been largely unanswered.
And still, we come to the bottom line which is that even if there is a causal link, there's literally nothing we can do to limit independent political spending without completely gutting everything that makes this nation what it is.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: zappaisgod]
#21570145 - 04/19/15 11:12 PM (9 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I have asked this question repeatedly but nobody ever answers. Why should the NY Times be exempt from your proposed free speech strictures?
That question has been answered numerous times. Let me refresh your memory.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
|
Re: No limit on campaign contributions [Re: Enlil]
#21570169 - 04/19/15 11:23 PM (9 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: There is literally no way to limit independent expenditures on political speech without creating a group of people in this country with an obscene, almost absolute, power.
Why can't we just apply similar rules to independent expenditures as we do to campaign contributions?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
|