Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A new report released by Public Citizen this week surveys the results:
* Spending by outside groups jumped to $294.2 million in the 2010 election cycle, a nearly four-fold increase from the $68.9 million spent in 2006, the last mid-terms. Nearly half of that ($138.5 million) came from just 10 groups, with the biggest share by far benefiting Republicans.
* In 60 out of 75 congressional races, the candidate benefiting most from outside spending won the race -- a remarkable 80 percent win rate.
* The source of the money flooding into elections after Citizens United largely hidden: Because many of the independent groups aren't required to disclose their donors, barely a third -- 34 percent -- of the groups reported which people and groups gave them money.
As Public Citizen notes, the cloak of secrecy surrounding corporate campaign spending goes against the Supreme Court thinking behind Citizens United, which was that massive corporate spending was acceptable as long as the public knew about it:
Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion for the majority was based in part on the assumption that any dangers posed by the new flood of corporate spending in elections would be mitigated by disclosure. "This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages," Kennedy wrote.
The DISCLOSE Act, a bill that would have required non-profit groups to reveal the donors behind their election war chests, failed by one vote last spring in the face of a Senate Republican filibuster.
CU didn't address a lot of issues, transparency concerning the actual source of funds being one of them. The organization or company has to disclose who is running the ad, but where did the money actually come from?
Good question, and one that should be addressed when CU comes up again - as it will.
CU didn't address a lot of issues, transparency concerning the actual source of funds being one of them. The organization or company has to disclose who is running the ad, but where did the money actually come from?
Good question, and one that should be addressed when CU comes up again - as it will.
I am wondering though, what is Modbert's point? Democrats outspent Republicans in 2008, and it went the other way last year. Is this bad because the Republicans had more money this time, or is it actually bad for another reason?
CU didn't address a lot of issues, transparency concerning the actual source of funds being one of them. The organization or company has to disclose who is running the ad, but where did the money actually come from?
Good question, and one that should be addressed when CU comes up again - as it will.
I am wondering though, what is Modbert's point? Democrats outspent Republicans in 2008, and it went the other way last year. Is this bad because the Republicans had more money this time, or is it actually bad for another reason?
Read his comment at the end of he piece. He's asking about transparency - which is a very good question.
The partisan breakdown doesn't surprise me this time around. I'd like to know where that cash came from though - on both sides.
Remember the CU dissent and the warnings concerning foreign participation in the political process. It would be eye opening to see how many took advantage of the loophole they were given to use foreign contributions.
I am wondering though, what is Modbert's point? Democrats outspent Republicans in 2008, and it went the other way last year. Is this bad because the Republicans had more money this time, or is it actually bad for another reason?
Read his comment at the end of he piece. He's asking about transparency - which is a very good question.
The partisan breakdown doesn't surprise me this time around. I'd like to know where that cash came from though - on both sides.
Remember the CU dissent and the warnings concerning foreign participation in the political process. It would be eye opening to see how many took advantage of the loophole they were given to use foreign contributions.
Depends on what he means by transparency. He has never had a problem with massive campaign spending when the Democrats benefit, and I need proof before I would equate spending with purchased candidates.
We clearly have the best government that money can buy.
Isn't there at least one other thread on this topic?
Maybe, just maybe, spending increased because 2010 was a hotly contested election with lots of voter participation and interest? Just a guess there.
And so what? So what if spending icnreased 1000%? Even more? We need MORE money in politics, not less. Less money benefits incumbents, who get news coverage for free.
The whole post is filled with unwarranted assumptions and unsupported allegations.
So yet another FAIL for Juniorbert, who ought to be doing his homework instead of posting with the grownups.
Depends on what he means by transparency. He has never had a problem with massive campaign spending when the Democrats benefit, and I need proof before I would equate spending with purchased candidates.
Isn't there at least one other thread on this topic?
Maybe, just maybe, spending increased because 2010 was a hotly contested election with lots of voter participation and interest? Just a guess there.
And so what? So what if spending icnreased 1000%? Even more? We need MORE money in politics, not less. Less money benefits incumbents, who get news coverage for free.
The whole post is filled with unwarranted assumptions and unsupported allegations.
So yet another FAIL for Juniorbert, who ought to be doing his homework instead of posting with the grownups.
You are an imbecile, duffus.
ISS - One year after Citizens United
A new report released by Public Citizen this week surveys the results:
* Spending by outside groups jumped to $294.2 million in the 2010 election cycle, a nearly four-fold increase from the $68.9 million spent in 2006, the last mid-terms. Nearly half of that ($138.5 million) came from just 10 groups, with the biggest share by far benefiting Republicans.
* In 60 out of 75 congressional races, the candidate benefiting most from outside spending won the race -- a remarkable 80 percent win rate.
* The source of the money flooding into elections after Citizens United largely hidden: Because many of the independent groups aren't required to disclose their donors, barely a third -- 34 percent -- of the groups reported which people and groups gave them money.
As Public Citizen notes, the cloak of secrecy surrounding corporate campaign spending goes against the Supreme Court thinking behind Citizens United, which was that massive corporate spending was acceptable as long as the public knew about it:
Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion for the majority was based in part on the assumption that any dangers posed by the new flood of corporate spending in elections would be mitigated by disclosure. "This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages," Kennedy wrote.
The DISCLOSE Act, a bill that would have required non-profit groups to reveal the donors behind their election war chests, failed by one vote last spring in the face of a Senate Republican filibuster.
More after the jump. I would think that all of us can agree that more transparency is a good thing, especially when it comes to which interests are buying candidates.
Did TruthMatters hack Modbert's account?
I can imagine Gunny pounding his head on the desk going "What possessed me to make him a Mod?"
ISS - One year after Citizens United
A new report released by Public Citizen this week surveys the results:
* Spending by outside groups jumped to $294.2 million in the 2010 election cycle, a nearly four-fold increase from the $68.9 million spent in 2006, the last mid-terms. Nearly half of that ($138.5 million) came from just 10 groups, with the biggest share by far benefiting Republicans.
* In 60 out of 75 congressional races, the candidate benefiting most from outside spending won the race -- a remarkable 80 percent win rate.
* The source of the money flooding into elections after Citizens United largely hidden: Because many of the independent groups aren't required to disclose their donors, barely a third -- 34 percent -- of the groups reported which people and groups gave them money.
The DISCLOSE Act, a bill that would have required non-profit groups to reveal the donors behind their election war chests, failed by one vote last spring in the face of a Senate Republican filibuster.
More after the jump. I would think that all of us can agree that more transparency is a good thing, especially when it comes to which interests are buying candidates.
*sigh* how much money was spent by each side and where did the money come from there is a site that tells us that...
and I trust the dog that doesn't bark..... trust me on this; IF the media had even a sniff of foreign money in rep. campaigns, we'd be bombarded with it every week..
.in fact they did try that back in the summer and it fell flat when even left leaning folks like bob Schiefer asked the soap salesman ( axelrod) where his evidence was.....he had none.
