CDZ No matter who wins, does the 2016 election show that one man can buy an election?

[2aguy]

This thread may or may not work in CDZ - it's already diverting/derailing.

I THINK the point 320 was trying to make - and what we should stick to for the topic - is NOT whether or not either Hillary or Trump PURCHASED an election but rather whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

So let's take this as a speculative question - not of specific players. 320 did raise some interesting questions. Let's look at those questions and not at Trump or Clinton specifically.

The original post by 320 states that Trump is the issue...

Straightforward enough question. Forget about whether you like Trump or don't. That's not the point here. Ignore whether Trump wins or not; that also doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a moment. The short is that one very rich man who has the political thoughts he has, to a material albeit not complete extent, opened his wallet and purchased an election.

It also states:
This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.

Yes.....and?

 

[Coyote]

This thread may or may not work in CDZ - it's already diverting/derailing.

I THINK the point 320 was trying to make - and what we should stick to for the topic - is NOT whether or not either Hillary or Trump PURCHASED an election but rather whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

So let's take this as a speculative question - not of specific players. 320 did raise some interesting questions. Let's look at those questions and not at Trump or Clinton specifically.

The original post by 320 states that Trump is the issue...

Straightforward enough question. Forget about whether you like Trump or don't. That's not the point here. Ignore whether Trump wins or not; that also doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a moment. The short is that one very rich man who has the political thoughts he has, to a material albeit not complete extent, opened his wallet and purchased an election.

It also states:
This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.

Yes.....and?

What do you think of the possible ramifications long term if someone can do this? Or - do you think an election has been bought - if not, why?

 

[2aguy]

This thread may or may not work in CDZ - it's already diverting/derailing.

I THINK the point 320 was trying to make - and what we should stick to for the topic - is NOT whether or not either Hillary or Trump PURCHASED an election but rather whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

So let's take this as a speculative question - not of specific players. 320 did raise some interesting questions. Let's look at those questions and not at Trump or Clinton specifically.

The original post by 320 states that Trump is the issue...

Straightforward enough question. Forget about whether you like Trump or don't. That's not the point here. Ignore whether Trump wins or not; that also doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a moment. The short is that one very rich man who has the political thoughts he has, to a material albeit not complete extent, opened his wallet and purchased an election.

It also states:
This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.

Yes.....and?

What do you think of the possible ramifications long term if someone can do this? Or - do you think an election has been bought - if not, why?

I think that American citizens should be able to donate as much money as they want to whoever they want to run for political office...the more you put limits on donations, the more likely you get only the rich being able to run for office...it does not guarantee success....just ask jeb bush.....money only works if the candidate can get support....

The election has not been bought...it has been colluded into unfairness by a media that supports one candidate......

 

[Pumpkin Row]

whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

A perfect description of what Hillary's doing. Except she's running on her husband's name, too. I think people are pointing out the hypocrisy in 320's post, which would mean they are staying on topic, since they're addressing content within the post.

 

[SingleVoyce]

This thread may or may not work in CDZ - it's already diverting/derailing.

I THINK the point 320 was trying to make - and what we should stick to for the topic - is NOT whether or not either Hillary or Trump PURCHASED an election but rather whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

So let's take this as a speculative question - not of specific players. 320 did raise some interesting questions. Let's look at those questions and not at Trump or Clinton specifically.

The original post by 320 states that Trump is the issue...

Straightforward enough question. Forget about whether you like Trump or don't. That's not the point here. Ignore whether Trump wins or not; that also doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a moment. The short is that one very rich man who has the political thoughts he has, to a material albeit not complete extent, opened his wallet and purchased an election.

It also states:
This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.

Yes.....and?

What do you think of the possible ramifications long term if someone can do this? Or - do you think an election has been bought - if not, why?

If Trump was a more informed and reasonable candidate, he probably could have pulled it off particularly given an opportunity to run against a candidate with as much baggage as Hillary. Even though it is extremely unlikely that he will be elected, he has made enough of an impact that it may encourage other billionaires to take a shot in the future. In order to make such a run though, the potential candidate needs to have a lot of public exposure. Trump was somewhat unique in that respect because of his TV shows.

If another one is going to take a shot, who do you think it would be? Although Bloomberg has indicated that he is interested, I think that he's past the age where it would really be feasible.

Some possibilities:

Mark Cuban - He has dabbled in politics to some extent and has some public exposure through Shark Tank

Jeff Bezos - He has been politically active and now owns a major newspaper although he is not really well known to the general public

 

[Coyote]

This thread may or may not work in CDZ - it's already diverting/derailing.

I THINK the point 320 was trying to make - and what we should stick to for the topic - is NOT whether or not either Hillary or Trump PURCHASED an election but rather whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

So let's take this as a speculative question - not of specific players. 320 did raise some interesting questions. Let's look at those questions and not at Trump or Clinton specifically.

The original post by 320 states that Trump is the issue...

Straightforward enough question. Forget about whether you like Trump or don't. That's not the point here. Ignore whether Trump wins or not; that also doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a moment. The short is that one very rich man who has the political thoughts he has, to a material albeit not complete extent, opened his wallet and purchased an election.

It also states:
This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.

Yes.....and?

What do you think of the possible ramifications long term if someone can do this? Or - do you think an election has been bought - if not, why?

If Trump was a more informed and reasonable candidate, he probably could have pulled it off particularly given an opportunity to run against a candidate with as much baggage as Hillary. Even though it is extremely unlikely that he will be elected, he has made enough of an impact that it may encourage other billionaires to take a shot in the future. In order to make such a run though, the potential candidate needs to have a lot of public exposure. Trump was somewhat unique in that respect because of his TV shows.

If another one is going to take a shot, who do you think it would be? Although Bloomberg has indicated that he is interested, I think that he's past the age where it would really be feasible.

Some possibilities:

Mark Cuban - He has dabbled in politics to some extent and has some public exposure through Shark Tank

Jeff Bezos - He has been politically active and now owns a major newspaper although he is not really well known to the general public

I don't really see someone has "buying" an election being unique. Extremely wealthy people have certainly run in elections. What's unique about Trump is his populism, his timing, and his ability to run independently of his parties financing and wishes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

A perfect description of what Hillary's doing. Except she's running on her husband's name, too. I think people are pointing out the hypocrisy in 320's post, which would mean they are staying on topic, since they're addressing content within the post.

We certainly don't see here condottieri posting a list of her glowing accomplishments.

Here's the reason:






@12:00 As Senator....introduced three minor bills which became law in seven years. That includes naming a post office.



She became a Senator for the same reason that John 'Do You know Who I Am" Kerry "carried a home movie camera [in Vietnam] to “record his exploits,” according to the Drudge Report.
Controversy over Kerry’s re-enacted war scenes

 

[Coyote]

whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

A perfect description of what Hillary's doing. Except she's running on her husband's name, too. I think people are pointing out the hypocrisy in 320's post, which would mean they are staying on topic, since they're addressing content within the post.

Pointing out the hypocrisy is one thing - but if the thread degenerates into wikileaks/he bought/she bought - the actual point of the OP is being lost, don't you think?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

A perfect description of what Hillary's doing. Except she's running on her husband's name, too. I think people are pointing out the hypocrisy in 320's post, which would mean they are staying on topic, since they're addressing content within the post.

Pointing out the hypocrisy is one thing - but if the thread degenerates into wikileaks/he bought/she bought - the actual point of the OP is being lost, don't you think?

No, I don't think that at all. I think people should be allowed to point out and discuss the glaring hypocrisy in a post, since it's completely on topic, as is anything wikileaks-related, since they're part of the topic of "buying an election", which is IN the title and OP. If you limit people pointing out flaws in an argument, eventually it's not a debate anymore, but people discussing varying levels of propaganda.

Now, in terms of limiting the scope of a discussion, I'd completely understand saying someone is off-topic if a response was, say, a random picture of horse dung in place of actual conversation, or showing up to spew insults and flame someone by calling them names. That's neither on topic, nor is it valuable input. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, hi Coyote~<3

 

[Coyote]

whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

A perfect description of what Hillary's doing. Except she's running on her husband's name, too. I think people are pointing out the hypocrisy in 320's post, which would mean they are staying on topic, since they're addressing content within the post.

Pointing out the hypocrisy is one thing - but if the thread degenerates into wikileaks/he bought/she bought - the actual point of the OP is being lost, don't you think?

No, I don't think that at all. I think people should be allowed to point out and discuss the glaring hypocrisy in a post, since it's completely on topic, as is anything wikileaks-related, since they're part of the topic of "buying an election", which is IN the title and OP. If you limit people pointing out flaws in an argument, eventually it's not a debate anymore, but people discussing varying levels of propaganda.

Now, in terms of limiting the scope of a discussion, I'd completely understand saying someone is off-topic if a response was, say, a random picture of horse dung in place of actual conversation, or showing up to spew insults and flame someone by calling them names. That's neither on topic, nor is it valuable input. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, hi Coyote~<3

That's what I'm trying to accomplish - because I think this can easily degenerate into a non-CDZ thread on who is more horrible and corrupt. And hiya back

 

[320 Years of History]

You mean "Can one woman buy the presidency?" She is outspending Trump by a mile.

No, I do not mean that at all. Did you actually read the whole OP?

The topic of discussion is neither Mrs. Clinton, nor Donald Trump. It's not about which of them wins the election. It has nothing to do with the actual amount of money either of them spends or who spends more or less.

 

[OldLady]

Straightforward enough question. Forget about whether you like Trump or don't. That's not the point here. Ignore whether Trump wins or not; that also doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a moment. The short is that one very rich man who has the political thoughts he has, to a material albeit not complete extent, opened his wallet and purchased an election.

Now, to me that just doesn't sit well. It doesn't, not because it's Trump who did it, but because it shows it can very conceivably be done. This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.

Ross Perot sort of gave it a shot some years back, but he did it as an Independent, not on the Dem or Rep ticket. Mr. Perot even did pretty well, gaining about 20% of the popular vote, but zero electoral votes. Thus his run didn't demonstrate convincingly that one could in essence buy the Presidency.

The sum of money needed also is clearly "not that much." So far, Trump is projected to spend about $100M or so of his own money. For someone who's worth billions, that's not much at all. It's even doable for folks worth $500M to $1B because at that wealth level, one's lifestyle doesn't change because one may after the fact be a couple hundred million dollars less wealthy.


So just what are the implications of what Trump has without question demonstrated?

• Are we about to have an era of wealthy entertainers -- because they have the charisma and built in name recognition -- as President, Senator, Congressperson?
• We've all seen members here write about the "oligarchs," or in the press they're called "elites," and the extent of control they already have over the political process, and that's when they are "buying" an election for someone else.
  • What is to come when they instead, using the example Trump has given us, buy elected offices for themselves?
  • Is there any hope after this for "regular" people really having any say in American politics and policymaking?
• I doubt we'll devolve into something akin to African nations with their patronage bribes for public office, but we might, although it may be different individuals, groups and entities who get paid.
  • Would it be the media -- bloggers, television and radio networks, editorialists, reporters, execs, etc. -- who get paid?
    • What stops the wealthy candidate from dropping the bulk of their ad buys on XYZ network in exchange for favorable coverage?
    • What stops blog/editorial writers from also being on the dole?
  • When it's a private individual funding their run, what makes them spend the money out of their campaign fund instead of just buying ad time and facilities, etc, out of their pocket, no official campaign involved?
  • What stops one from mostly bypassing the official campaign if one has one?
• Just how far down the hierarchy will this go in years ahead? Congress? State legislatures? Dog catcher?
• What about a person basically using their campaign as a vehicle for creating a tax deduction out of their election bid? I already showed how that works now in a different post. (Nobody had much to say about it before, so I'm not going to link it here.
• What sorts of requirements must we implement to somehow ensure that even if it's only "oligarchs" running, we the people at least get accurate information about them so we can make well informed choices based on info that is "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" rather than the "spun" information we've been getting for the past "however many decades it's been?"
  • Will we need honesty in political campaigning statutes?
  • Will we need to mandate the nature and extent of coverage media outlets provide for candidates?
  • Should media outlets be required to provide free and equal amounts coverage for all candidates in order to keep ?

Obviously, I am not suggesting that one cannot use one's own money to finance a political campaign. That just doesn't fit with the American way. By the same token, neither does "buying" an election or evolving to political model where only the mega, mega rich get elected to high office.

The preceding just deals with the tip of the iceberg of portents given by Trump's run for President. It's no secret that running for President, to say nothing of winning is one sure way to $5M - $10M; candidates have to fight off book publishers. When a winning candidate is a private company owner and operator, the potential for graft and chicanery is all but unlimited. Even if there were a thought that something untoward were to have taken place, how would investigators obtain credible evidence of it? I mean really, who's going to tell them the truth among a President, their wife, sons, daughters and other immediate family members in the case of a closely held business entity that's large enough to provide the kind of money we're talking about?

However we answer the questions above, whatever happens next, we are all but certain to see a whole new paradigm in politics and elections. Whether one likes Trump or not, he's singularly responsible for whatever becomes of our electoral process and players.

If I understand the OP correctly, it ignores one salient point. If the person running for office does not have ideas and opinions and plans that the majority of Americans agree with, that person will not become president. As Perot exemplified, money isn't all. You've got to have a winning message. So no, I don't believe any Joe Schmoe can buy an election.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

A perfect description of what Hillary's doing. Except she's running on her husband's name, too. I think people are pointing out the hypocrisy in 320's post, which would mean they are staying on topic, since they're addressing content within the post.

Pointing out the hypocrisy is one thing - but if the thread degenerates into wikileaks/he bought/she bought - the actual point of the OP is being lost, don't you think?

No, I don't think that at all. I think people should be allowed to point out and discuss the glaring hypocrisy in a post, since it's completely on topic, as is anything wikileaks-related, since they're part of the topic of "buying an election", which is IN the title and OP. If you limit people pointing out flaws in an argument, eventually it's not a debate anymore, but people discussing varying levels of propaganda.

Now, in terms of limiting the scope of a discussion, I'd completely understand saying someone is off-topic if a response was, say, a random picture of horse dung in place of actual conversation, or showing up to spew insults and flame someone by calling them names. That's neither on topic, nor is it valuable input. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, hi Coyote~<3

That's what I'm trying to accomplish - because I think this can easily degenerate into a non-CDZ thread on who is more horrible and corrupt. And hiya back

It just looked, to me, like you were posting as if someone was already off topic rather than keeping people from going off-topic. I don't actually see any off-topic posts yet, since anything involving the topic of buying an election should be fair game. Siiince Hillary HAS been buying the election, that makes those actions and related ones fair game, riiight~?

 

[Coyote]

This thread may or may not work in CDZ - it's already diverting/derailing.

I THINK the point 320 was trying to make - and what we should stick to for the topic - is NOT whether or not either Hillary or Trump PURCHASED an election but rather whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

So let's take this as a speculative question - not of specific players. 320 did raise some interesting questions. Let's look at those questions and not at Trump or Clinton specifically.

The original post by 320 states that Trump is the issue...

Straightforward enough question. Forget about whether you like Trump or don't. That's not the point here. Ignore whether Trump wins or not; that also doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a moment. The short is that one very rich man who has the political thoughts he has, to a material albeit not complete extent, opened his wallet and purchased an election.

It also states:
This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.

Yes.....and?

What do you think of the possible ramifications long term if someone can do this? Or - do you think an election has been bought - if not, why?

I think that American citizens should be able to donate as much money as they want to whoever they want to run for political office...the more you put limits on donations, the more likely you get only the rich being able to run for office...it does not guarantee success....just ask jeb bush.....money only works if the candidate can get support....

The election has not been bought...it has been colluded into unfairness by a media that supports one candidate......

Well, I would disagree on the media part because the media has had some 20 years to examine and tear apart Clinton - as first lady, as senator, as sec of state and now as a candidate. She's been turned inside out. They failed abysmally with Trump because they never took him as a serious candidate but treated him as a celebrity - now they're playing catch up with stuff that should have come out in the primaries, not now. I don't think money has anything to do with the media aspect other than the richer you are the more potential for malfeasence whether deliberate or not exists and the more of a paper trail there is.

I don't think the election has been "bought" per se, but Trump's wealth has given him a unique opportunity to totally buck his party and tell them where to stick it. He doesn't need them, he doesn't need establishment support and he never courted it. If he were not wealthy - could he have pulled this off?

 

[Coyote]

whether an individual, with a lot of money and no public policy experience whatsoever, can essentially "purchase" an election through one of the political parties.

A perfect description of what Hillary's doing. Except she's running on her husband's name, too. I think people are pointing out the hypocrisy in 320's post, which would mean they are staying on topic, since they're addressing content within the post.

Pointing out the hypocrisy is one thing - but if the thread degenerates into wikileaks/he bought/she bought - the actual point of the OP is being lost, don't you think?

No, I don't think that at all. I think people should be allowed to point out and discuss the glaring hypocrisy in a post, since it's completely on topic, as is anything wikileaks-related, since they're part of the topic of "buying an election", which is IN the title and OP. If you limit people pointing out flaws in an argument, eventually it's not a debate anymore, but people discussing varying levels of propaganda.

Now, in terms of limiting the scope of a discussion, I'd completely understand saying someone is off-topic if a response was, say, a random picture of horse dung in place of actual conversation, or showing up to spew insults and flame someone by calling them names. That's neither on topic, nor is it valuable input. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, hi Coyote~<3

That's what I'm trying to accomplish - because I think this can easily degenerate into a non-CDZ thread on who is more horrible and corrupt. And hiya back

It just looked, to me, like you were posting as if someone was already off topic rather than keeping people from going off-topic. I don't actually see any off-topic posts yet, since anything involving the topic of buying an election should be fair game. Siiince Hillary HAS been buying the election, that makes those actions and related ones fair game, riiight~?

No, I wasn't trying to do that - just keep it from becoming a bashing thread.

 

[320 Years of History]

Just so you folks understand. For this thread's topic, if Hillary Clinton had self-funded as Donald did, I would have written the OP with regard to them both. This topic is not about chiding Trump, Clinton or any other candidate.

If Mrs. Clinton had self-funded and Trump did not, I'd written the exact same OP and all that would be different is where it says "Trump," "he" and "man" I would have written "Clinton," "she" and "woman." If it helps you understand the the thread topic better, assume that Mrs. Clinton did self-fund and that Trump did not. Using that assumption, the first two paragraphs of the OP would instead read:

Straightforward enough question. Forget about whether you like Clinton or don't. That's not the point here. Ignore whether Clinton wins or not; that also doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a moment. The short is that one very rich woman who has the political thoughts she has, to a material albeit not complete extent, opened her wallet and purchased an election.

Now, to me that just doesn't sit well. It doesn't, not because it's Clinton who did it, but because it shows it can very conceivably be done. This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.​

If you read the OP and just assume Mrs. Clinton self-funded, the questions asked and concerns expressed are precisely the same. I don't care if it was Mrs. Clinton, Trump or the Man in the Moon who in effect may have purchased the Presidency. Of course, we have to wait for the election to end to know whether the self-funding individual (no matter who it might be) will have in effect purchased the Presidency. For now, all we can say is that we have clear evidence that it is possible for a person having enough money can attempt to do so and succeed.

Please, take the time to read the OP carefully. I'm not saying there is something wrong with a person using their money to fund their election. That's not it at all, and I tried to make that clear when in the OP I wrote, "Obviously, I am not suggesting that one cannot use one's own money to finance a political campaign."

So, please, take off your partisan hats and put on your Political Science 101 hat.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just so you folks understand. For this thread's topic, if Hillary Clinton had self-funded as Donald did, I would have written the OP with regard to them both. This topic is not about chiding Trump, Clinton or any other candidate.

If Mrs. Clinton had self-funded and Trump did not, I'd written the exact same OP and all that would be different is where it says "Trump," "he" and "man" I would have written "Clinton," "she" and "woman." If it helps you understand the the thread topic better, assume that Mrs. Clinton did self-fund and that Trump did not. Using that assumption, the first two paragraphs of the OP would instead read:

Straightforward enough question. Forget about whether you like Clinton or don't. That's not the point here. Ignore whether Clinton wins or not; that also doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a moment. The short is that one very rich woman who has the political thoughts she has, to a material albeit not complete extent, opened her wallet and purchased an election.

Now, to me that just doesn't sit well. It doesn't, not because it's Clinton who did it, but because it shows it can very conceivably be done. This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.​

If you read the OP and just assume Mrs. Clinton self-funded, the questions asked and concerns expressed are precisely the same. I don't care if it was Mrs. Clinton, Trump or the Man in the Moon who in effect may have purchased the Presidency. Of course, we have to wait for the election to end to know whether the self-funding individual (no matter who it might be) will have in effect purchased the Presidency. For now, all we can say is that we have clear evidence that it is possible for a person having enough money can attempt to do so and succeed.

Please, take the time to read the OP carefully. I'm not saying there is something wrong with a person using their money to fund their election. That's not it at all, and I tried to make that clear when in the OP I wrote, "Obviously, I am not suggesting that one cannot use one's own money to finance a political campaign."

So, please, take off your partisan hats and put on your Political Science 101 hat.

The focus on MONEY is short-sighted. The coronation of Hillary over Bernie was designed for YEARS. Using money and power and influence that never shows on an FEC report. "Greasing the Skids" -- kiddies. Trump has actually been reserved in his spending. Shows patience and mgt skills. And a phenomenal understanding of how to get free media coverage. Perhaps the 1st compliment I've ever given the man.

The question SHOULD BE -- can only DYNASTIES run for President anymore? The ones with the highest media skills and name recognition. Because politics and politicians are now lower than paramecium in a scum pond. And you have to have a history of total loyalty -- OR -- be a media star and hijack a party the way the Trump dynasty has done.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary Clinton
Total cash on hand
$177.7M
Candidate Raised to Date* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $766.6M

Spent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $614.0M

Cash on Hand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $152.6M


Super-PACs Raised to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $183.0M

Spent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $159.1M

Cash on Hand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25.1M


Total Raised to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $949.6M

Total Spent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $773.2M

Total Cash on Hand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $177.7M

Donald Trump
Total cash on hand
$97.3M
Candidate Raised to Date* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $392.1M

Spent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $315.0M

Cash on Hand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $77.0M


Super-PACs Raised to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $57.0M

Spent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $37.9M

Cash on Hand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20.3M


Total Raised to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $449.1M

Total Spent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $352.9M

Total Cash on Hand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $97.3M

Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race

But but but Trump "bought" the election....

 

[320 Years of History]

Straightforward enough question. Forget about whether you like Trump or don't. That's not the point here. Ignore whether Trump wins or not; that also doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a moment. The short is that one very rich man who has the political thoughts he has, to a material albeit not complete extent, opened his wallet and purchased an election.

Now, to me that just doesn't sit well. It doesn't, not because it's Trump who did it, but because it shows it can very conceivably be done. This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.

Ross Perot sort of gave it a shot some years back, but he did it as an Independent, not on the Dem or Rep ticket. Mr. Perot even did pretty well, gaining about 20% of the popular vote, but zero electoral votes. Thus his run didn't demonstrate convincingly that one could in essence buy the Presidency.

The sum of money needed also is clearly "not that much." So far, Trump is projected to spend about $100M or so of his own money. For someone who's worth billions, that's not much at all. It's even doable for folks worth $500M to $1B because at that wealth level, one's lifestyle doesn't change because one may after the fact be a couple hundred million dollars less wealthy.


So just what are the implications of what Trump has without question demonstrated?

• Are we about to have an era of wealthy entertainers -- because they have the charisma and built in name recognition -- as President, Senator, Congressperson?
• We've all seen members here write about the "oligarchs," or in the press they're called "elites," and the extent of control they already have over the political process, and that's when they are "buying" an election for someone else.
  • What is to come when they instead, using the example Trump has given us, buy elected offices for themselves?
  • Is there any hope after this for "regular" people really having any say in American politics and policymaking?
• I doubt we'll devolve into something akin to African nations with their patronage bribes for public office, but we might, although it may be different individuals, groups and entities who get paid.
  • Would it be the media -- bloggers, television and radio networks, editorialists, reporters, execs, etc. -- who get paid?
    • What stops the wealthy candidate from dropping the bulk of their ad buys on XYZ network in exchange for favorable coverage?
    • What stops blog/editorial writers from also being on the dole?
  • When it's a private individual funding their run, what makes them spend the money out of their campaign fund instead of just buying ad time and facilities, etc, out of their pocket, no official campaign involved?
  • What stops one from mostly bypassing the official campaign if one has one?
• Just how far down the hierarchy will this go in years ahead? Congress? State legislatures? Dog catcher?
• What about a person basically using their campaign as a vehicle for creating a tax deduction out of their election bid? I already showed how that works now in a different post. (Nobody had much to say about it before, so I'm not going to link it here.
• What sorts of requirements must we implement to somehow ensure that even if it's only "oligarchs" running, we the people at least get accurate information about them so we can make well informed choices based on info that is "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" rather than the "spun" information we've been getting for the past "however many decades it's been?"
  • Will we need honesty in political campaigning statutes?
  • Will we need to mandate the nature and extent of coverage media outlets provide for candidates?
  • Should media outlets be required to provide free and equal amounts coverage for all candidates in order to keep ?

Obviously, I am not suggesting that one cannot use one's own money to finance a political campaign. That just doesn't fit with the American way. By the same token, neither does "buying" an election or evolving to political model where only the mega, mega rich get elected to high office.

The preceding just deals with the tip of the iceberg of portents given by Trump's run for President. It's no secret that running for President, to say nothing of winning is one sure way to $5M - $10M; candidates have to fight off book publishers. When a winning candidate is a private company owner and operator, the potential for graft and chicanery is all but unlimited. Even if there were a thought that something untoward were to have taken place, how would investigators obtain credible evidence of it? I mean really, who's going to tell them the truth among a President, their wife, sons, daughters and other immediate family members in the case of a closely held business entity that's large enough to provide the kind of money we're talking about?

However we answer the questions above, whatever happens next, we are all but certain to see a whole new paradigm in politics and elections. Whether one likes Trump or not, he's singularly responsible for whatever becomes of our electoral process and players.

If I understand the OP correctly, it ignores one salient point. If the person running for office does not have ideas and opinions and plans that the majority of Americans agree with, that person will not become president. As Perot exemplified, money isn't all. You've got to have a winning message. So no, I don't believe any Joe Schmoe can buy an election.

Yes, I get what you're saying. That's why in several places I was careful to write things like: "in effect" or "to a material albeit not complete extent" or "n a manner of speaking." It's also why I wrote the bit about "charismatic."

I realize that it's not as simple as just writing a check and showing up on the Capitol steps in January. I tried to present, in the bulleted list of questions, a representation (not a 100% complete listing) of many of the major factors that are in play. One of them is that the person who would aim to "buy" an elective office still must appeal to the voters, but as implied in the combination of ideas found in the first and last "major" bullet questions, it's quite possible for charismatic candidates to mislead voters no matter what is objectively the truth. The candidate's charisma is part of what makes that possible, revulsion toward others is another enabling factor.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just so you folks understand. For this thread's topic, if Hillary Clinton had self-funded as Donald did, I would have written the OP with regard to them both. This topic is not about chiding Trump, Clinton or any other candidate.

If Mrs. Clinton had self-funded and Trump did not, I'd written the exact same OP and all that would be different is where it says "Trump," "he" and "man" I would have written "Clinton," "she" and "woman." If it helps you understand the the thread topic better, assume that Mrs. Clinton did self-fund and that Trump did not. Using that assumption, the first two paragraphs of the OP would instead read:

Straightforward enough question. Forget about whether you like Clinton or don't. That's not the point here. Ignore whether Clinton wins or not; that also doesn't matter, and I'll explain why in a moment. The short is that one very rich woman who has the political thoughts she has, to a material albeit not complete extent, opened her wallet and purchased an election.

Now, to me that just doesn't sit well. It doesn't, not because it's Clinton who did it, but because it shows it can very conceivably be done. This is the first time in modern electoral history when we've seen that a charismatic individual with no public policymaking experience who has enough money in fact can, in a manner of speaking, purchase the U.S. Presidency via one of the two major parties.​

If you read the OP and just assume Mrs. Clinton self-funded, the questions asked and concerns expressed are precisely the same. I don't care if it was Mrs. Clinton, Trump or the Man in the Moon who in effect may have purchased the Presidency. Of course, we have to wait for the election to end to know whether the self-funding individual (no matter who it might be) will have in effect purchased the Presidency. For now, all we can say is that we have clear evidence that it is possible for a person having enough money can attempt to do so and succeed.

Please, take the time to read the OP carefully. I'm not saying there is something wrong with a person using their money to fund their election. That's not it at all, and I tried to make that clear when in the OP I wrote, "Obviously, I am not suggesting that one cannot use one's own money to finance a political campaign."

So, please, take off your partisan hats and put on your Political Science 101 hat.

I'm still trying to figure out how someone who spends 50 cents on the opponents dollar "buys" the election