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

[MisterBeale]

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.

However, you, along with the help of your white knighting moderator who love Hillary, are operating from a false premise.

If you weren't so ignorant about politics, you wouldn't post such an ignorant thread.

Trump only pledged to put up 100 million of his own money. Till now, it seems he hasn't even put up that much.

Your ignorance on this shows you watch too much TV and you are woefully misinformed. This thread was dead at launch.

Here Are All the Billionaires Who Have Said I'm With Trump

Trump pledges to spend $100 million on his campaign — he has $44 million to go

 

[MisterBeale]

Try posting some links that support your fantasies.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Red:
Yes, that's definitely part of it. This time round, sure it's Trump; however, it's being him is beside the point. It could just as well be anyone who has the money and the charisma and the concerns and questions expressed and to consider would be exactly the same.

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

Red:
Yes, that's definitely part of it. This time round, sure it's Trump; however, it's being him is beside the point. It could just as well be anyone who has the money and the charisma and the concerns and questions expressed and to consider would be exactly the same.

Ross Perot much?

 

[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.

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.

Well, if you're going to throw in misleading the voters, that complicates the thing beyond just "buying" the election. Although I suppose all pols do that to some extent, too. My opinion is still that the candidate needs a valid bill of goods to sell the American public, not just unlimited funds. Since you don't want the discussion to stray into any of the current candidates, I don't have much else to say on the topic.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Red:
Yes, that's definitely part of it. This time round, sure it's Trump; however, it's being him is beside the point. It could just as well be anyone who has the money and the charisma and the concerns and questions expressed and to consider would be exactly the same.

Ross Perot much?

Mr. Perot was addressed in the OP. Please go back and thoroughly read the OP. I'm happy to hear your thoughts about the themes this thread aims to address, but in order for them to have gravitas, you (anyone) has to read the whole OP. That way you won't bring up factors that have been covered already.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

Someone with their own TV show can apparently hijack a major political party. That much as been shown.

 

[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.

Well, if you're going to throw in misleading the voters, that complicates the thing beyond just "buying" the election. Although I suppose all pols do that to some extent, too. My opinion is still that the candidate needs a valid bill of goods to sell the American public, not just unlimited funds. Since you don't want the discussion to stray into any of the current candidates, I don't have much else to say on the topic.

Red:
Of course, one cannot "buy" an election the way one buys a building. Yes, one must still get voters to vote one into the office. A central theme, problem really, that we've seen played out this election cycle -- more so than in any prior one, IMO -- is that given enough money, a candidate who aims to misrepresent facts/substance can, by purchasing the "right" mix of messaging and message delivery can do just that and it works when they do, that is to say a large-enough-to-win-the-election quantity of people will accept as true misrepresentations that are convincingly-enough presented.

I think folks on both sides of the current choice between Trump and Mrs. Clinton will agree with that. Reps see Mrs. Clinton has having misrepresented things. Dems see Trump has having done so. So, what differences derive from the fact that a charismatic candidate can and does self-fund their campaign?

Let's say that you are a billionaire and you declare your candidacy for office. You want to see the country/government implement Policies A, B and C. You've never held public office of any sort. Now no matter how good or bad hindsight will some 50 years from now show your policies to be, right now as we all are deciding between you and your opponent(s), we voters can only decide based on what we have learned (formal + informal + experiential) in our lives. The more information we have, the better we voters are able to tell whether your policies, claims, etc. are good ones, for whom they are good and for whom they are not, and so on.

So far that's really no different than what we Americans have experienced for hundreds of years, so let's keep going. Because you are largely (or completely if you want) self-funding, have no constituency to whom you are beholden for the money you use to fund your pursuit of the office you seek. There's absolutely nobody to "pull the plug" on the money flow if you "get out of hand." Given that we have already established that by using the "right" messaging techniques, you can convince "a lot" of voters that your policies and whatever else about you that you care to share are "good for them," and there's nothing and nobody, other than your own code of conduct, that can reign you back in. You just keep going because you have mounted a populist campaign and don't care about the thousand folks whom most of the "grassroots voters" have never heard of, or don't like anyway if they have. In fact, it works to your populist appeal's benefit to have actual experts go against you. As long as you can keep paying for the messages that mislead folks about the details of A, B and C, voters believe those policies are good for them.

Now contrast that with your opponent, call him Joey, who depends on the contributions of others to fund his election and who has Policies P, Q and R. Now the "goodness" of Joey's policies is, like yours, only truly knowable well into the future, but When Joey gets "out of hand," some donors stop contributing even if all of them do not. Joey loses some, most or all of his ability to communicate his messages beyond what is covered as a course of routine news coverage. He's to some extent squelched. If/when Joey "flies right" again, the money flow picks back up. Joey's donors act effectively to keep Joey from getting too extreme, whereas you have no similar "governor."

In a way, the donors, especially big money ones, are part of the system of checks and balances. For instances, if I'm considering donating $500K to Joey's cause, I'm surely going to figure out what the details are of Joey's P, Q and R policies are and how they will impact me, the nation, etc. I may not do it personally, but it will get done and it will get done by someone who's truly an expert on the things about which I want information. Who's doing that research re: your A, B, and C policies? It's not the news stations, and even if they do it, they won't tell everyone all the details. It's not the voters individually; they have babies to burp, jobs to do, and so on. It's certainly not you for you are only going to present your side of the story. But when Joey's big money backers deny their continued support, that says, even absent the details, that something's amiss with your proposals, even though it may not be shared or known what is "off" and whom whatever it is will worst affect.


So when you get a super rich candidate, it really doesn't matter what one says or who can "see through it" or not. As long as one can make voters think one is "good," by spending money like there's no tomorrow (something Trump hasn't exactly done, but he could have), there's literally nothing standing in one's way from becoming President. The "lipstick" can effectively hide the fact that one is a pig.

To the extent one achieves that outcome, one has purchased an election, and upon taking office, to whom does one owe any allegiance? Millions of people who have no way to effectively organize against you. (You know that as well as I. How often do Congressmen and Senators respond to "little" voter demands instead of "big money" demands?) Plus, once you're in office, we're stuck with you for at least four years. Now if less wealthy folks used the same techniquest to "buy" their House and Senate seats, then what? What if you, Miss Billionairess, "bought" or helped "buy" theirs too?


Blue:
I don't have a problem with using the current candidate's names. Certainly the phenomenon I'm describing has come to mind because of my observations about current and past candidates' campaigns. The personal styles of the current candidates are surely not unique within human nature, so others like them may well come along.

 

[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.

Someone with their own TV show can apparently hijack a major political party. That much as been shown.

Sure, I suppose owning a TV show will give them the money they need, but the person need not own a TV show. They just have to be very charismatic and very rich and very well known. And where's the thing that stops the usurper from "hijacking" (I called it "buying") the general election?

 

[presonorek]

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.

I always thought Ross Perot was trying his damnedest to help Bill Clinton win. I also think Donald Trump is trying his damnedest to help Hillary Clinton win. Yes. Elections can be bought. The Clintons can't play within the campaign finance rules. They have multimillionaires/billionaires to run for president in order to fake everybody out as part of their strategy. Donald Trump clobbered some respectable Republicans so that Hillary wouldn't have to do it. Yes Ross Perot and Donald Trump can buy elections but they can't buy them for themselves.

 

[320 Years of History]

Discussion Facilitation and OP Clarification:

Another member suggested that the OP is hard to grasp. I shared the following with them and they suggested I share it in the thread to help make the thread intent clearer.

It's actually a topic my mentee was given as one part of one of several final essay topics from which he could choose (spring 2016). The OP's title is almost exactly what was written as the assignment rubric, but simpler.

• The essay question was:
  
  "Compare and contrast election campaign self-funding with public funding and private donations. Using the 2016 election as an illustrative model, discuss the implications self-funding has on the political process and on the institutions we rely upon to administer, prepare for and hold election campaigns. Specify the campaign financing model you think facilitates the best balance among the extant political stability, empirical, Constitutional and ethical imperatives. Explain why. Take care to expound not only upon the advantages of your chosen model, but also how to overcome its disadvantages."

If folks want to take on answering the original question that inspired the OP, have at it. I'd love to see what folks have to offer in response to that question. (No, it is not the question my mentee chose.)

 

[I amso IR]

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

Budgeting, budgeting , budgeting! In the end it is still about money whichever way the pendulum swings. The old po/ta/toe vs po/tat/o thing.

 

[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.

I always thought Ross Perot was trying his damnedest to help Bill Clinton win. I also think Donald Trump is trying his damnedest to help Hillary Clinton win. Yes. Elections can be bought. The Clintons can't play within the campaign finance rules. They have multimillionaires/billionaires to run for president in order to fake everybody out as part of their strategy. Donald Trump clobbered some respectable Republicans so that Hillary wouldn't have to do it. Yes Ross Perot and Donald Trump can buy elections but they can't buy them for themselves.

I also think Donald Trump is trying his damnedest to help Hillary Clinton win.

Maybe he is. I have to admit it is hard to tell sometimes.

Yes. Elections can be bought. The Clintons can't play within the campaign finance rules.

I suspect the theme you had in mind writing that isn't the same one I had in mind for the thread. Campaign finance is unquestionably the object of the thread theme, but it's not exactly the theme itself. They are certainly closely related, but to fit the thread rubric, what the Clintons play with is irrelevant just as whether they or anyone else is self-financing is irrelevant.

It's not about who does "whatever" -- be that "whatever" good or bad -- but rather it's about what and how, as a result of having been shown a new approach in the 2016 election cycle, "whomever" would be in position to do in future elections. Mrs. Clinton and Trump are merely the "whomevers" of the current election cycle, but the question is bigger than both of them.

They have multimillionaires/billionaires to run for president in order to fake everybody out as part of their strategy....Yes Ross Perot and Donald Trump can buy elections but they can't buy them for themselves.

This is an interesting idea, one that removes from play a tacit assumption of the thread rubric. What would stop sufficiently rich folks from buying an election for themselves?

A model for how one might approach doing that is precisely what Perot attempted to apply to his bid, and we handily observe that his approach didn't work, or even show promise of working under any circumstances. In contrast, a slightly different model is what Trump has applied in this cycle, and regardless of whether Trump wins the election, it's quite clear that his approach is considerably more effective than was Perot's.

The most obvious difference between the two men's approach is that Trump made his run inside a major party whereas Perot did not. To put it in visual terms, Trump took the "parasitic" strategy and Perot took the "hornet's" strategy. One "attacked" from within and the other from without. Trump is charismatically burlesque and Perot phlegmatically charismatic. That's just them, but charisma they both have in spades.

That said, for whom would either of them, were/if they to win the election, have buy an election other than for themselves? Do you envision either man stepping down after winning the election?

 

[cereal_killer]

Trump has spent a fraction of what the others who preceded him spent. I think if anything it shows that ones message carries more weight than how much money is in their pocket and spent.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump has spent a fraction of what the others who preceded him spent. I think if anything it shows that ones message carries more weight than how much money is in their pocket and spent.

The op makes no sense at all. there's no way of explain it

 

[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

Budgeting, budgeting , budgeting! In the end it is still about money whichever way the pendulum swings. The old po/ta/toe vs po/tat/o thing.

Riiiight. So Trump "bought" the election by spending only half the current market price.

And that makes sense to you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Discussion Facilitation and OP Clarification:

Another member suggested that the OP is hard to grasp. I shared the following with them and they suggested I share it in the thread to help make the thread intent clearer.

It's actually a topic my mentee was given as one part of one of several final essay topics from which he could choose (spring 2016). The OP's title is almost exactly what was written as the assignment rubric, but simpler.

• The essay question was:
  
  "Compare and contrast election campaign self-funding with public funding and private donations. Using the 2016 election as an illustrative model, discuss the implications self-funding has on the political process and on the institutions we rely upon to administer, prepare for and hold election campaigns. Specify the campaign financing model you think facilitates the best balance among the extant political stability, empirical, Constitutional and ethical imperatives. Explain why. Take care to expound not only upon the advantages of your chosen model, but also how to overcome its disadvantages."

If folks want to take on answering the original question that inspired the OP, have at it. I'd love to see what folks have to offer in response to that question. (No, it is not the question my mentee chose.)

The OP is not "hard to grasp", it's just plain wrong and off in the hundred million column. You're saying Trump "Bought the election" irrespective of the fact that: a) he hasn't won yet (Progressives, remember every vote counts, get to the polls on Nov 18th!) and b) he spent half what his opponent spent, yet you expect a perfect 100 word paragraph in response

 

[PredFan]

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.

Then you should have said "one person" instead of "one man".

 

[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.

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.

Well, if you're going to throw in misleading the voters, that complicates the thing beyond just "buying" the election. Although I suppose all pols do that to some extent, too. My opinion is still that the candidate needs a valid bill of goods to sell the American public, not just unlimited funds. Since you don't want the discussion to stray into any of the current candidates, I don't have much else to say on the topic.

Red:
Of course, one cannot "buy" an election the way one buys a building. Yes, one must still get voters to vote one into the office. A central theme, problem really, that we've seen played out this election cycle -- more so than in any prior one, IMO -- is that given enough money, a candidate who aims to misrepresent facts/substance can, by purchasing the "right" mix of messaging and message delivery can do just that and it works when they do, that is to say a large-enough-to-win-the-election quantity of people will accept as true misrepresentations that are convincingly-enough presented.

I think folks on both sides of the current choice between Trump and Mrs. Clinton will agree with that. Reps see Mrs. Clinton has having misrepresented things. Dems see Trump has having done so. So, what differences derive from the fact that a charismatic candidate can and does self-fund their campaign?

Let's say that you are a billionaire and you declare your candidacy for office. You want to see the country/government implement Policies A, B and C. You've never held public office of any sort. Now no matter how good or bad hindsight will some 50 years from now show your policies to be, right now as we all are deciding between you and your opponent(s), we voters can only decide based on what we have learned (formal + informal + experiential) in our lives. The more information we have, the better we voters are able to tell whether your policies, claims, etc. are good ones, for whom they are good and for whom they are not, and so on.

So far that's really no different than what we Americans have experienced for hundreds of years, so let's keep going. Because you are largely (or completely if you want) self-funding, have no constituency to whom you are beholden for the money you use to fund your pursuit of the office you seek. There's absolutely nobody to "pull the plug" on the money flow if you "get out of hand." Given that we have already established that by using the "right" messaging techniques, you can convince "a lot" of voters that your policies and whatever else about you that you care to share are "good for them," and there's nothing and nobody, other than your own code of conduct, that can reign you back in. You just keep going because you have mounted a populist campaign and don't care about the thousand folks whom most of the "grassroots voters" have never heard of, or don't like anyway if they have. In fact, it works to your populist appeal's benefit to have actual experts go against you. As long as you can keep paying for the messages that mislead folks about the details of A, B and C, voters believe those policies are good for them.

Now contrast that with your opponent, call him Joey, who depends on the contributions of others to fund his election and who has Policies P, Q and R. Now the "goodness" of Joey's policies is, like yours, only truly knowable well into the future, but When Joey gets "out of hand," some donors stop contributing even if all of them do not. Joey loses some, most or all of his ability to communicate his messages beyond what is covered as a course of routine news coverage. He's to some extent squelched. If/when Joey "flies right" again, the money flow picks back up. Joey's donors act effectively to keep Joey from getting too extreme, whereas you have no similar "governor."

In a way, the donors, especially big money ones, are part of the system of checks and balances. For instances, if I'm considering donating $500K to Joey's cause, I'm surely going to figure out what the details are of Joey's P, Q and R policies are and how they will impact me, the nation, etc. I may not do it personally, but it will get done and it will get done by someone who's truly an expert on the things about which I want information. Who's doing that research re: your A, B, and C policies? It's not the news stations, and even if they do it, they won't tell everyone all the details. It's not the voters individually; they have babies to burp, jobs to do, and so on. It's certainly not you for you are only going to present your side of the story. But when Joey's big money backers deny their continued support, that says, even absent the details, that something's amiss with your proposals, even though it may not be shared or known what is "off" and whom whatever it is will worst affect.


So when you get a super rich candidate, it really doesn't matter what one says or who can "see through it" or not. As long as one can make voters think one is "good," by spending money like there's no tomorrow (something Trump hasn't exactly done, but he could have), there's literally nothing standing in one's way from becoming President. The "lipstick" can effectively hide the fact that one is a pig.

To the extent one achieves that outcome, one has purchased an election, and upon taking office, to whom does one owe any allegiance? Millions of people who have no way to effectively organize against you. (You know that as well as I. How often do Congressmen and Senators respond to "little" voter demands instead of "big money" demands?) Plus, once you're in office, we're stuck with you for at least four years. Now if less wealthy folks used the same techniquest to "buy" their House and Senate seats, then what? What if you, Miss Billionairess, "bought" or helped "buy" theirs too?


Blue:
I don't have a problem with using the current candidate's names. Certainly the phenomenon I'm describing has come to mind because of my observations about current and past candidates' campaigns. The personal styles of the current candidates are surely not unique within human nature, so others like them may well come along.

Because you are largely (or completely if you want) self-funding, have no constituency to whom you are beholden for the money you use to fund your pursuit of the office you seek. There's absolutely nobody to "pull the plug" on the money flow if you "get out of hand." Given that we have already established that by using the "right" messaging techniques, you can convince "a lot" of voters that your policies and whatever else about you that you care to share are "good for them," and there's nothing and nobody, other than your own code of conduct, that can reign you back in.
At long last, I get what you're saying.
I never thought of campaign funds as a way to "control" a candidate before. Hypothetically, anyone can run as long as they can afford to take the time off from work to campaign, and enough money to travel around the country, rent halls, hire some helpers. But I always assumed that was what the RNC and DNC were for--to help with all those basic expenses. Candidates also raise money from the public like Bernie did or with all the super expensive per-plate fund raisers that supporters hold. Trump and Clinton both take advantage of those and of super pacs. So in order to "turn off the spigot" and stop a candidate from running, there would have to be a way to stop supporters from contributing as well.

The idea of controlling how far a candidate can go by controlling the funding source is an interesting one, but has that ever actually been done before? I assume it is the RNC or DNC that pulls the plug if they don't like the candidate.

 

[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.

Then you should have said "one person" instead of "one man".

....So had you read the whole OP rather than just the beginning of it, that "one person" and not Trump specifically is the context would have become clear....It would have as you encountered the following statements:

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.