$10,000,000,000 for the election is grotesque!

[there4eyeM]

Does anyone think such a sum, as I just heard estimated on television, can be justified?

Doesn't this make a mockery of democratic selection?

What can and should be done about it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does anyone think such a sum, as I just heard estimated on television, can be justified?

Doesn't this make a mockery of democratic selection?

What can and should be done about it?

You don't think this country is worth $10 billion?

 

[Steelplate]

Does anyone think such a sum, as I just heard estimated on television, can be justified?

Doesn't this make a mockery of democratic selection?

What can and should be done about it?

You don't think this country is worth $10 billion?

The country? yes. The politicians? No.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does anyone think such a sum, as I just heard estimated on television, can be justified?

Doesn't this make a mockery of democratic selection?

What can and should be done about it?

You don't think this country is worth $10 billion?

The country? yes. The politicians? No.

What makes you think it is about the politicians?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you know where that money went?

To pay the salaries of people like me.

 

[FA_Q2]

I thought that all spending was good for the economy? I guess not anymore, because it is spending that you do not like….

Anywho, yes that number is asinine and obscene. But the vast majority of people on this board or in this nation don’t actually think so. Proof? They are still voting for (in vast majorities) for the 2 candidates that spend this kind of cash and have been doing so for decades. No one really wants real change. All they want is to bitch about the things the other one is doing that happen to be the same things that they want done…

 

[there4eyeM]

It is a totally disgusting situation and one that tells the world, "See the 'greatest democracy? It's for sale to the highest bidder!"

There must be a reasonable way to keep elections down to a 'human' level!

 

[Borillar]

We have the best government that money can buy.

 

[there4eyeM]

We have the best government that money can buy.

It certainly is the most f-ing expensive! $10b would make a fair GDP for a little country. It could help a lot of people. It could corrupt many. Oh, right, it already does that.

 

[Leweman]

It's all good besides the illegal donations Obama is getting from outside the country.

 

[jillian]

Does anyone think such a sum, as I just heard estimated on television, can be justified?

Doesn't this make a mockery of democratic selection?

What can and should be done about it?

it is grotesque. welcome to life after citizen's united.

there isn't anything to do about it until either citizen's united is reversed or a constitutional amendment overturning it is passed

until then, you can't have election finance reform.

 

[eflatminor]

Does anyone think such a sum, as I just heard estimated on television, can be justified?

I suspect the ad firms and media outlets that were paid to promote the candidates would consider the amount they charged to be perfectly justified.

Are you arguing they charged too much for all those ad spots?

Doesn't this make a mockery of democratic selection?

Why would it? They all spent large sums of money, both sides. You still get to decide who you'll vote for. The democratic process lives on...

What can and should be done about it?

You have the issue, you suggest an alternative. Just remember that stiffing free speech is not a reasonable, or legal, alternative. The people have the right to say what they like and to spend their own money as they like.

 

[Politico]

Who estimated it? The same folks who said it costs 200 million a day to go to India?

 

[there4eyeM]

It is not at all clear that one should have the legal right to spend more than a reasonable amount to achieve a political goal. There is no logical or constitutional reason that spending limits could not be applied, just the way arms are limited despite the 'right to bear arms' (I always liked 'the right to arm bears!).

Free speech does not mean freedom to monopolize the means of communications. Perhaps the percentage of advertising that could be accepted for political purposes could be limited, thus avoiding any infringement on the 'right' of someone to contribute over $34 million to one candidate, as Rmoney has had.

When it is considered that the present system squelches free speech, it is difficult to defend it.

 

[eflatminor]

It is not at all clear that one should have the legal right to spend more than a reasonable amount to achieve a political goal.

It's crystal clear. Your money, your right to spend it as you wish.

"Reasonable" is not yours to decide. One guy thinks $2000 is a reasonable price to pay for a car. Another thinks $200,000 is the right amount. Both are reasonable to those spending their own money on a voluntary basis. Both are reasonable to the guys that have a job building those cars.

There is no logical or constitutional reason that spending limits could not be applied,

You must first present a logical reason why government should have the ability to restrict how a someone spends their own money. And please, show us where "spending limits" appear within the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

Free speech does not mean freedom to monopolize the means of communications.

There is a monopoly on communication? Link?

Perhaps the percentage of advertising that could be accepted for political purposes could be limited,

Now you want the tell media outlets what they can and cannot publish. No 1st amendment issue there!

thus avoiding any infringement on the 'right' of someone to contribute over $34 million to one candidate, as Rmoney has had.

That "someone" gave his own money voluntarily. You're free to give yours to whomever you like. What makes you think you should have the authority to tell people how that can or cannot spend their own resources? What next, you can't volunteer more than one hour a week to one candidate? Can't have people offering to help too much!

When it is considered that the present system squelches free speech, it is difficult to defend it

Correct. Because that's exactly what it is.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, at least you agree that the present system restricts freedom of speech.

When one person's rights infringe on another's, there are limits. A reasonable amount for a political election could and should be established. That does not prevent speaking freely. Having someone dominate by sheer force of dollars is not democratic. There is no reason to accept that.

 

[eflatminor]

So, at least you agree that the present system restricts freedom of speech.

Not sure what you're suggesting here. Are you saying you agreed with the Citizen's United finding? You seem to have flipped from your previous statements.

When one person's rights infringe on another's, there are limits.

Of course. That's always been the case in America. You've not made a case that political contributions infringe on anyone's rights.

A reasonable amount for a political election could and should be established.

Now you're back to restricting the free expression of a citizen.

That does not prevent speaking freely.

Actually, it does. And the SC agrees. Again, why should you get to tell someone else what they can or cannot spend THEIR money on?

Having someone dominate by sheer force of dollars is not democratic.

Dominated what? Please demonstrate where someone is dominating anything by spending there own money in such as way as to render the voting process undemocratic.

There is no reason to accept that.

You have yet to provide an alternative.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is only one single alternative (because eflatminor is correct) and that is not voting for the big spenders. Stop watching the ads and make decisions that are NOT based on the amount of cash that the candidates are spending. Won’t happen until the shit really hits the fan though because people are, for the most part, sheep. They really don’t care as long as they come home to a hot dinner on the table and a working tv. They will not wake up until AFTER it is too late.


You cannot arbitrarily limit campaign financing or what people spend their money on without trampling free speech. I don’t care what you think of the outcome of CU because the underlying law is utterly correct. The only caveat here is that I believe full disclosure should be required. The very nature of speech means that the speaker is identified. I cannot see how you can justify anonymity with the act of speech. They are opposites.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is not at all clear that one should have the legal right to spend more than a reasonable amount to achieve a political goal. There is no logical or constitutional reason that spending limits could not be applied, just the way arms are limited despite the 'right to bear arms' (I always liked 'the right to arm bears!).

Free speech does not mean freedom to monopolize the means of communications. Perhaps the percentage of advertising that could be accepted for political purposes could be limited, thus avoiding any infringement on the 'right' of someone to contribute over $34 million to one candidate, as Rmoney has had.

When it is considered that the present system squelches free speech, it is difficult to defend it.

Honey Boo Boo gets more public exposure than most politicians running for office. I'm really not concerned. There IS a lot of waste. The amount of information in the paid ads is atrociously small and ineffective.

That $10Bill you worried about has got to be for the entire election cycle. If that's 300 races then the number is about $33Mill per race. A constituency could represent from 1Mill to 20Mill people (or in the case of the Prez about 150M). That works out to be somewhere between $33 and $1.60 per constituent. That brings this number way down to earth..

No way I want to limit a campaign.. Even when I'm a HUGE fan of disadvantaged 3rd party politics. What I WANT is ACCESS to debates, easier qualification for ballot access and the mainstream media to start covering ISSUES and less babbling about it being a f'ing horserace.. Amount of trivial ads would dissapear overnight if the press did their jobs..

 

[Rozman]

Does anyone think such a sum, as I just heard estimated on television, can be justified?

Doesn't this make a mockery of democratic selection?

What can and should be done about it?

it is grotesque. welcome to life after citizen's united.

there isn't anything to do about it until either citizen's united is reversed or a constitutional amendment overturning it is passed

until then, you can't have election finance reform.

I notice the Democrat party didn't have any problem with spending to get Obama elected again....
Libs cry..."that damm Citizens united...boo hoo hoo.." Then they go out and spend their asses off....

Pa leeeeeze