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

[Staidhup]

One man or woman can not afford to buy an election, unless of course he or she can afford to buy a politician cheap!

 

[presonorek]

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.

As a 2016 candidate for local office in North Carolina, I am familiar with the campaign finance laws in my state. I know that federal laws are more strict. For example a candidate in North Carolina can receive up to $5,100.00 from an individual. In federal elections (congress, senate, president) the maximum donation is $2,700.00. The loophole utilized by the Clinton's via Ross Perot and via Donald Trump is the self financing allowances. *For candidates in North Carolina the candidate's own contributions is unlimited. I'm certain this is the case in federal elections as well. This is where the Clinton's strategy proves effective. Ross Perot could indirectly assist the Clinton campaign with as much money as he was willing to spend. Donald Trump can indirectly assist the Clinton campaign with as much money as he is willing to spend. This is because he is officially contributing to the Donald Trump campaign. Another frequently used loophole is the allowance to donate to PAC's which are sometimes referred to as Super PAC's. To my knowledge these are the same thing. Political Action Committees (PAC's) are independent of any candidate and often advocate one particular cause. The courts have recently ruled that limiting donations to PAC's is limiting to an individual's freedom of speech. This loophole could easily be utilized to endorse a candidate. All a wealthy individual has to do is create a PAC that advocates a cause that their favored candidate is well known to advocate. If someone wanted to donate $25,000,000 to the Donald Trump campaign then he would be breaking the law. That would not be allowed. If the individual wanted to create a Political Action Committee that advocated for building a wall against the Mexican border then he could easily utilize $25,000,000 to help Donald Trump win. In theory elections can be bought but no elections can't be bought. All candidates are playing by the same rule. Both sides are exploiting the same loopholes. No elections can't be bought. The message is getting out there and ultimately the voters decide. In medium size elections this might be the case. Governors, Senators or Congressmen might be able to buy their seats. I don't think the office of president can be purchased. I also don't think the office of mayor, state senator, city councilmen or anything like that can be purchased either. I have seen wealthy people attempt to buy their way into office. At least 3 candidates in my area over the last 10 years bought houses in districts that they thought were easier to win. It doesn't work. The voters see right through it. FYI: They didn't list the purchase of their house as a campaign expense.

The moral of the story is that elections cannot be purchased but if they can it is probably done at the medium sized level not the presidential level.



*Recently in North Carolina family members of the candidate's contributions were unlimited as well. That is no longer the case.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

As a 2016 candidate for local office in North Carolina, I am familiar with the campaign finance laws in my state. I know that federal laws are more strict. For example a candidate in North Carolina can receive up to $5,100.00 from an individual. In federal elections (congress, senate, president) the maximum donation is $2,700.00. The loophole utilized by the Clinton's via Ross Perot and via Donald Trump is the self financing allowances. *For candidates in North Carolina the candidate's own contributions is unlimited. I'm certain this is the case in federal elections as well. This is where the Clinton's strategy proves effective. Ross Perot could indirectly assist the Clinton campaign with as much money as he was willing to spend. Donald Trump can indirectly assist the Clinton campaign with as much money as he is willing to spend. This is because he is officially contributing to the Donald Trump campaign.

Another frequently used loophole is the allowance to donate to PAC's which are sometimes referred to as Super PAC's. To my knowledge these are the same thing. Political Action Committees (PAC's) are independent of any candidate and often advocate one particular cause. The courts have recently ruled that limiting donations to PAC's is limiting to an individual's freedom of speech. This loophole could easily be utilized to endorse a candidate. All a wealthy individual has to do is create a PAC that advocates a cause that their favored candidate is well known to advocate. If someone wanted to donate $25,000,000 to the Donald Trump campaign then he would be breaking the law. That would not be allowed. If the individual wanted to create a Political Action Committee that advocated for building a wall against the Mexican border then he could easily utilize $25,000,000 to help Donald Trump win.

In theory elections can be bought but no elections can't be bought. All candidates are playing by the same rule. Both sides are exploiting the same loopholes. No elections can't be bought. The message is getting out there and ultimately the voters decide. In medium size elections this might be the case. Governors, Senators or Congressmen might be able to buy their seats. I don't think the office of president can be purchased. I also don't think the office of mayor, state senator, city councilmen or anything like that can be purchased either. I have seen wealthy people attempt to buy their way into office. At least 3 candidates in my area over the last 10 years bought houses in districts that they thought were easier to win. It doesn't work. The voters see right through it. FYI: They didn't list the purchase of their house as a campaign expense.

The moral of the story is that elections cannot be purchased but if they can it is probably done at the medium sized level not the presidential level.

*Recently in North Carolina family members of the candidate's contributions were unlimited as well. That is no longer the case.

Green:
Agreed.

Blue:
Keeping in mind that a candidate may spend as much as s/he wants on his/her campaign....

??? What loophole do you have in mind? Ross Perot is not a Clinton family member, so the unlimited donation of his own funds to the Clinton's campaign efforts isn't available to him. Are you suggesting that as a mega-rich person he might might "give" money to the candidate (Mrs. Clinton, Trump, you, some other candidate) rather than to the candidate's campaign organization, thus making the cash be that of the candidate, whereafter the candidate can then contribute it to their campaign committee as they see fit, the consequence being that Ross Perot in substance but not form skirts campaign contribution limits?

Pink:
Before responding directly to your "pink" comments, I wasn't actually aiming in this thread to address the PAC/Super PAC aspect of the "money trail." My focus is really on what candidates spend of their own resources. That is the focus because that form of spending is unlimited thus leaving the candidate accountable to nobody other than themselves. Of course accountability has its pros and cons.

Reading your "pink" remarks, it seems to me you are mixing elements of PACs and Super PACs, so I want to inject some clarity and precision in to that part of the discussion. The two are not the same things even though both (1) are distinct organizations (independent) from that of a candidate's campaign organization and (2) may advocate for whatever they desire.

• PAC Allowed Transactions:
  • Receive money from donors up to $5K per donor, provided the donor is not a union or corporation, neither of which may contribute to a PAC
  • Spend money on advocacy such as ads, signs, rallies, etc.
  • Give money to a candidate's campaign committee/organization up to $5K/election
  • Give money to a political party up to $15K/election
  • Corporations and unions may establish a PAC (more accurately called an SSF), and they have different guidelines
• Super PAC (shorthand for "independent expenditure-only political committee") Allowed Transactions:
  • Receive unlimited sums of money from domestic donors, including unions and corporations
  • Spend money on advocacy such as ads, signs, rallies, etc.
  • **Prohibited** from giving money to a candidate's campaign committee/organization
  • **Prohibited** from coordinating its efforts with those of a candidate's campaign committee/organization

There are also what are referred to as "dark money groups." These are 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) organizations, social welfare and trade associations, respectively. They are also called "issue advocacy" groups. The NRA is one, the NAACP is another. They can accept unlimited contributions from any source and are not required to publicly disclose their donors. "Dark money groups" may engage in some candidate election related activities; however, such activities may not be the primary activities of the organizations. It is generally understood that a "dark money group’s" primary activities will not be considered engaged in political campaigns if it spends less than 50 percent of its funds on electioneering. These groups may not contribute directly to a candidate but they may contribute unlimited amounts to a Super PAC supporting a candidate.

In the context of the example you used -- the $25M donation to a super PAC -- that too isn't really what I was getting at when I wrote that Trump has demonstrated that a sufficiently rich charismatic person can effectively "buy" an election.

Brown:
This also isn't what I meant in saying that "a sufficiently rich charismatic person can effectively 'buy' an election."

I think one can make a credible case that something akin to what you describe is what Mrs. Clinton did in running for Senator of New York. I mean, it's not as though she and Bill Clinton were at any point prior to that strongly connected with NY.

Red:
My response to the "red" text is where I'll again try to explain what I mean in saying that "a sufficiently rich charismatic person can effectively 'buy' an election."

My commitment for the next few hours does not allow me to right now provide that explanation. I will update the thread with my response to the "red" text later today (tomorrow from where you are in the U.S.). It won't be too much later, but I can't do it right now and I need to close the browser. Sorry.

 

[320 Years of History]

I suspect the theme you had in mind writing that isn't the same one I had in mind for the thread.

*For candidates in North Carolina the candidate's own contributions is unlimited. I'm certain this is the case in federal elections as well.

In theory elections can be bought but no elections can't be bought. All candidates are playing by the same rule. Both sides are exploiting the same loopholes. No elections can't be bought. The message is getting out there and ultimately the voters decide.

Post #63 continued....

Red (sections in red from post #63)

The context in which I mean by saying that "sufficiently rich charismatic person can effectively 'buy' an election" is not that which directly equates to or is even tantamount to running to the store and buying eggs or some other such good/service. What I mean is that a "sufficiently rich charismatic person" can, through the power of their charisma, raw fame, and wealth (assuming they have enough of those traits) enter a Presidential election race, articulate whatever ideas they want, be they germane, objectively true, good or for people on an individual level, good or bad for the people as a national polity/citizenry and make a very effective bid for the Presidency, perhaps even winning it.

I'll explain the "person" part of the statement. After that, I'll go into the "buy" aspect. With that, let's get started by looking at the power traits by which one can absent formal authority influence others: charisma, expertise and information power.

Charisma Power
Charisma power is a way to exert influence over people through force of character, and to get them to do what the leader wants, thus modifying behavior. This form of influence flows directly from the leader. It consists entirely of an unyielding commitment to believing in oneself. Overly simplified, it might be called the comingling of self confidence, renown, and glamor brought to bear to achieve the owner's objectives that s/he cannot achieve independently of others. (For a somewhat more expansive description of charisma power and its dimensions, read "The Power of You" by Sandra Kruse-Smith. A full explanation can be found in Executive Charisma: Six Steps to Mastering the Art of Leadership by D.A. Benton.) The key is that the more charismatic a leader, the more apt are individuals to unquestioningly follow him/her, most especially if his message is what they want to hear. Whether the theme, means, modes or even actionability of implementing the message "holds water" is quite beside the point.

FDR, JFK, MLK, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and others each had/have very charismatic public personas; people embraced them, thus their political messages quite often solely on the charismatic force of the individual. Finnish leaders after the Winter war offers yet another example "good" charismatic leadership that one can contrast with malfeasant yet equally charismatic leadership of Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, modern North Korean leaders and various other of history's political scoundrels.

Consider Kennedy for example. The man was at best indifferent toward blacks and the civil rights movement, even if he was somewhat sympathetic toward them/it**, yet his message was overwhelmingly one that blacks wanted to hear, and it didn't at all sound like insouciance toward blacks. JFK also understood the power of optics and innuendo. When MLK was arrested and sentenced to hard labor over a traffic ticket, the King family reached out to both Nixon and Kennedy. Nixon made some behind-the-scenes calls to try to effect Dr. King's release. Kennedy called his mother and expressed sympathy, and that in turn led to King's father feeling that Kennedy was "their guy." King, Sr. stated as much publicly. That entirely symbolic gesture garnered for Kennedy's unwavering support among blacks from that moment on. (To this day, my mother (89) swears that telephone call won the election for Kennedy.)

If you've ever seen a musical performer whom you like in a large arena and also in a more intimate setting and felt they were great in one venue and not as great in the other, you have observed how charisma comes across. Looking at our two major party candidates, one sees two manifestations of charisma: public/large state and private/small stage. Mrs. Clinton has charisma, but she's not all that adept at exuding it in "big stage" settings like arenas, yet if one meets her at a fundraising or social event having no more than a few hundred people, it's very hard not to be touched by her. Trump on the other hand is a showman. He thrives on the adulation of thousands; the bigger the crowd, the better tailored to him is the setting.

So as goes my statement that a "sufficiently rich charismatic person can effectively 'buy' an election," what I mean is that person who thrives on the large crowds, much as do many entertainers, can by force of will get the masses to believe in them, "buy" whatever the person is "selling," most especially if what's being sold is what they want to hear/"buy." In short, charisma allows followers to take the "happy path" toward choosing to embrace the leader in question because one doesn't have to think too hard to feel good about choosing to follow the leader. And let's face facts, who really wants to be challenged or forced to think critically about their own worldview? I submit nobody does.​

** Note:

Additional readings on Kennedy and his relationship and thoughts re: blacks.

• How The Kennedys Scammed & Played Black America
• The Dark Side of Camelot
  • "He not only considered women as less than equals, he often referred to the poor, the blacks, and the Jews, as "poor bastards". He showed almost no empathy and, like the majority of people of his time, accepted inequalities based on race, gender, and religious belief."

Additional readings on the role and influence of charisma:

• How Cultural Factors Affect Leadership - Knowledge@Wharton
  
• Charismatic Leadership and Power
  • "In the best case charismatic community is a truly community of humanity. The dark side of charisma is a dangerous phenomenon. How a leader can avoid this is a difficult question. Commitment and trust are natural elements of charismatic organization. People’s willingness to act without a massive material rewards is strength in itself. People are eager to commit to an ethically good organization, and this is it, what leaders are praying nowadays. Trust is being created through ethically good leadership. Charismatic leadership can be a vehicle of good management, but this demands conscious efforts of the leader, good leading practices and efforts of the followers, too."

Expertise Power:
Expert Power does not rely on formal positions, as it originates from people who possess technical information, or specific skills and expertise respected by others. These professionals advance and obtain followers because they have performed at an outstanding level in functional disciplines. Unless these experts recognize the need to exercise power and influence over their subordinates and peers, they will never be able to become the leaders they aspire to be. They may continue to be experts in their field, but their expertise alone won't allow them to boost themselves sufficiently in the eyes and minds of a polity the size of the U.S. in order to affect others’ behaviors, namely that of voting for the expert.

Information Power:
Information power is derived from information knowledge (an asset) a leader possesses to strategically influence the behavior, attitudes and values in their favor. It is, therefore, based upon the persuasiveness and the content of a communication, and in and of itself is independent of the influencing individual; however, it can be used by the would be or actual leader (influencing individual) to move people to perform the leader's desired action. Let's look at how this can happen.

You know what Listerine is, right. It's an antibacterial mouthwash. What is the message we receive about it? We are told that it kills germs that cause bad breath and that's why it's a product we want. What we aren't told is that it was originally developed as surface cleanser, namely floors, and as a cure for an STD. Moreover, until Listerine came along, bad breath wasn't considered as a problem that needed fixing. Listerine changed that. As the advertising scholar James B. Twitchell writes, "Listerine did not make mouthwash as much as it made halitosis." In just seven years, the company's revenues rose from $115,000 to more than $8 million.

Personally, given that corporeal bacteria build up resistance to antibiotics, I haven't much confidence that Listerine today will kill any bacteria one might have in one's mouth. That too is something Johnson & Johnson do not address. Their product does have antibiotics in it, and that's as far as they take the message. Limited-information messages issued to sell mouthwash is probably not that big a deal. Limited-information messages to sell a political candidate (or tear down an opposing candidate) to the American people is a whole different matter. It's a big deal.

The "Listerine story" is one of the classic examples given in graduate and undergraduate marketing classes to illustrate the power of "spin," marketing, how "the right" information presented in the "right way" can have a very powerful influence on the behavior and decisionmaking of unsuspecting consumers. No, they didn't alter the formula. All Listerine's makers did was alter what they suggested it be used for. Would you cotton to the notion of using a surgical and surface cleanser as a mouthwash? You might, but few people would, yet that's exactly what you're doing if you rinse your mouth with Listerine. Such is the power of selective disclosure of information and that tactic works to dissuade people from accepting the messages of competitors as well as to get them to accept one's own message(s).
​

Pulling the three types of power together to "buy" an election
In the 21st century, as always, successful political leaders are "storytellers." Not only are we seduced by stories (that’s why we like books, movies and theater), but we invariably place stories above price and quality. We often justify a lack of or excess of those attributes with stories. For instance, we always have a story for why we must pay the high cost for a Starbucks coffee, or for a high-priced Apple computer, for a higher cost FedEx shipment, why it "makes sense" buy a BMW or buy a 4K square foot home for just one or two people, or to justify skyrocketing tuitions at colleges and universities. Yet, all the leaders of the organizations promoting the things listed know how to tell their story, how to spin the tale of the "goodness" of that for which they advocate so as to capture our emotions, thereby inspiring to in our own minds justify and do that which may not by any dispassionate analysis is not at all rational. Indeed some of those leaders are so good at it they they become somewhat of a celebrity in the process.

Therefore, it is my belief that today’s leaders must possess the power of "storytelling," that is, effectively delivering their message and having it be accepted by the audience. The power of charisma, along with the power of incomplete/limited information, and a dash of expertise, when they become the predominant types of power leaders master, can result in the leader being able to make it possible to "buy" an election. No longer does legitimate and coercive power hold the edge. On the contrary, in a world full of deceit and greed, unless leaders have a good "story" to tell and tell it well, no one will be willing to follow.

The Final Part o the Equation: Money
This is surely the part of my statement that folks focus on for it's quite often a transactional thing that's easily understood. Of course, as I said before, one cannot literally write a check to buy an elected office for oneself. The "buy" that I have in mind is that which I discussed in part earlier with OldLady.

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.​

If one were dependent on contributions from others, if/when one's message gets too far afield, the money can stop flowing. Sure, the "mom and pop" donors may yet mail in their $25 contributions, but that's not going to be enough, most certainly at the level of the Presidential general election.

The other aspect of the money is that when a candidate has billions of their own money at their disposal, they can without impediment flood the airwaves with their "Listerine-like" message that only tells part of the story, the part that makes them appealing. It doesn't matter if they asking one to, in effect, "drink household cleanser" when the message is one that voters crave hearing. It doesn't matter whether what the candidate promises directly, alludes to or hints at. His/her charisma makes people want to believe it. When some years later the stated objectives are not reached, well, that can be dealt with by offering whatever limited-information excuse is both plausible and at least in part true.

Conclusion:
So what Trump has shown us is that a sufficiently charismatic person (they don't have to be perfectly charismatic, i.e., possessed of every aspect of charisma as given in the presentation referenced above) who has a message to deliver can, no matter the message, do so effectively and have it be believed if they have enough money to fund keeping their message before people. As long as the message validates what folks want to hear or have concocted in their own minds anyway, the charismatic candidate will prevail as a result of the factors noted above.

​

 

[presonorek]

Blue:
Keeping in mind that a candidate may spend as much as s/he wants on his/her campaign....

??? What loophole do you have in mind? Ross Perot is not a Clinton family member, so the unlimited donation of his own funds to the Clinton's campaign efforts isn't available to him. Are you suggesting that as a mega-rich person he might might "give" money to the candidate (Mrs. Clinton, Trump, you, some other candidate) rather than to the candidate's campaign organization, thus making the cash be that of the candidate, whereafter the candidate can then contribute it to their campaign committee as they see fit, the consequence being that Ross Perot in substance but not form skirts campaign contribution limits?

No. I was referring to 1992. He ran his own campaign that energized traditional Republican voters to vote for Ross Perot instead of George Bush. His campaign donations were unlimited because he was donating to the Ross Perot Campaign instead of the Bill Clinton campaign.

I have a feeling that Trump is doing the exact same thing for Hillary that Ross Perot did for Bill. Donald Trump is just doing a better job than Ross Perot. Do you really think Hillary could beat Jeb Bush? Now she doesn't have to beat him.

 

[presonorek]

I suspect the theme you had in mind writing that isn't the same one I had in mind for the thread.

*For candidates in North Carolina the candidate's own contributions is unlimited. I'm certain this is the case in federal elections as well.

In theory elections can be bought but no elections can't be bought. All candidates are playing by the same rule. Both sides are exploiting the same loopholes. No elections can't be bought. The message is getting out there and ultimately the voters decide.

Post #63 continued....

Red (sections in red from post #63)

The context in which I mean by saying that "sufficiently rich charismatic person can effectively 'buy' an election" is not that which directly equates to or is even tantamount to running to the store and buying eggs or some other such good/service. What I mean is that a "sufficiently rich charismatic person" can, through the power of their charisma, raw fame, and wealth (assuming they have enough of those traits) enter a Presidential election race, articulate whatever ideas they want, be they germane, objectively true, good or for people on an individual level, good or bad for the people as a national polity/citizenry and make a very effective bid for the Presidency, perhaps even winning it.

I'll explain the "person" part of the statement. After that, I'll go into the "buy" aspect. With that, let's get started by looking at the power traits by which one can absent formal authority influence others: charisma, expertise and information power.

Charisma Power
Charisma power is a way to exert influence over people through force of character, and to get them to do what the leader wants, thus modifying behavior. This form of influence flows directly from the leader. It consists entirely of an unyielding commitment to believing in oneself. Overly simplified, it might be called the comingling of self confidence, renown, and glamor brought to bear to achieve the owner's objectives that s/he cannot achieve independently of others. (For a somewhat more expansive description of charisma power and its dimensions, read "The Power of You" by Sandra Kruse-Smith. A full explanation can be found in Executive Charisma: Six Steps to Mastering the Art of Leadership by D.A. Benton.) The key is that the more charismatic a leader, the more apt are individuals to unquestioningly follow him/her, most especially if his message is what they want to hear. Whether the theme, means, modes or even actionability of implementing the message "holds water" is quite beside the point.

FDR, JFK, MLK, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and others each had/have very charismatic public personas; people embraced them, thus their political messages quite often solely on the charismatic force of the individual. Finnish leaders after the Winter war offers yet another example "good" charismatic leadership that one can contrast with malfeasant yet equally charismatic leadership of Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, modern North Korean leaders and various other of history's political scoundrels.

Consider Kennedy for example. The man was at best indifferent toward blacks and the civil rights movement, even if he was somewhat sympathetic toward them/it**, yet his message was overwhelmingly one that blacks wanted to hear, and it didn't at all sound like insouciance toward blacks. JFK also understood the power of optics and innuendo. When MLK was arrested and sentenced to hard labor over a traffic ticket, the King family reached out to both Nixon and Kennedy. Nixon made some behind-the-scenes calls to try to effect Dr. King's release. Kennedy called his mother and expressed sympathy, and that in turn led to King's father feeling that Kennedy was "their guy." King, Sr. stated as much publicly. That entirely symbolic gesture garnered for Kennedy's unwavering support among blacks from that moment on. (To this day, my mother (89) swears that telephone call won the election for Kennedy.)

If you've ever seen a musical performer whom you like in a large arena and also in a more intimate setting and felt they were great in one venue and not as great in the other, you have observed how charisma comes across. Looking at our two major party candidates, one sees two manifestations of charisma: public/large state and private/small stage. Mrs. Clinton has charisma, but she's not all that adept at exuding it in "big stage" settings like arenas, yet if one meets her at a fundraising or social event having no more than a few hundred people, it's very hard not to be touched by her. Trump on the other hand is a showman. He thrives on the adulation of thousands; the bigger the crowd, the better tailored to him is the setting.

So as goes my statement that a "sufficiently rich charismatic person can effectively 'buy' an election," what I mean is that person who thrives on the large crowds, much as do many entertainers, can by force of will get the masses to believe in them, "buy" whatever the person is "selling," most especially if what's being sold is what they want to hear/"buy." In short, charisma allows followers to take the "happy path" toward choosing to embrace the leader in question because one doesn't have to think too hard to feel good about choosing to follow the leader. And let's face facts, who really wants to be challenged or forced to think critically about their own worldview? I submit nobody does.​

** Note:

Additional readings on Kennedy and his relationship and thoughts re: blacks.

• How The Kennedys Scammed & Played Black America
• The Dark Side of Camelot
  • "He not only considered women as less than equals, he often referred to the poor, the blacks, and the Jews, as "poor bastards". He showed almost no empathy and, like the majority of people of his time, accepted inequalities based on race, gender, and religious belief."

Additional readings on the role and influence of charisma:

• How Cultural Factors Affect Leadership - Knowledge@Wharton
  
• Charismatic Leadership and Power
  • "In the best case charismatic community is a truly community of humanity. The dark side of charisma is a dangerous phenomenon. How a leader can avoid this is a difficult question. Commitment and trust are natural elements of charismatic organization. People’s willingness to act without a massive material rewards is strength in itself. People are eager to commit to an ethically good organization, and this is it, what leaders are praying nowadays. Trust is being created through ethically good leadership. Charismatic leadership can be a vehicle of good management, but this demands conscious efforts of the leader, good leading practices and efforts of the followers, too."

Expertise Power:
Expert Power does not rely on formal positions, as it originates from people who possess technical information, or specific skills and expertise respected by others. These professionals advance and obtain followers because they have performed at an outstanding level in functional disciplines. Unless these experts recognize the need to exercise power and influence over their subordinates and peers, they will never be able to become the leaders they aspire to be. They may continue to be experts in their field, but their expertise alone won't allow them to boost themselves sufficiently in the eyes and minds of a polity the size of the U.S. in order to affect others’ behaviors, namely that of voting for the expert.

Information Power:
Information power is derived from information knowledge (an asset) a leader possesses to strategically influence the behavior, attitudes and values in their favor. It is, therefore, based upon the persuasiveness and the content of a communication, and in and of itself is independent of the influencing individual; however, it can be used by the would be or actual leader (influencing individual) to move people to perform the leader's desired action. Let's look at how this can happen.

You know what Listerine is, right. It's an antibacterial mouthwash. What is the message we receive about it? We are told that it kills germs that cause bad breath and that's why it's a product we want. What we aren't told is that it was originally developed as surface cleanser, namely floors, and as a cure for an STD. Moreover, until Listerine came along, bad breath wasn't considered as a problem that needed fixing. Listerine changed that. As the advertising scholar James B. Twitchell writes, "Listerine did not make mouthwash as much as it made halitosis." In just seven years, the company's revenues rose from $115,000 to more than $8 million.

Personally, given that corporeal bacteria build up resistance to antibiotics, I haven't much confidence that Listerine today will kill any bacteria one might have in one's mouth. That too is something Johnson & Johnson do not address. Their product does have antibiotics in it, and that's as far as they take the message. Limited-information messages issued to sell mouthwash is probably not that big a deal. Limited-information messages to sell a political candidate (or tear down an opposing candidate) to the American people is a whole different matter. It's a big deal.

The "Listerine story" is one of the classic examples given in graduate and undergraduate marketing classes to illustrate the power of "spin," marketing, how "the right" information presented in the "right way" can have a very powerful influence on the behavior and decisionmaking of unsuspecting consumers. No, they didn't alter the formula. All Listerine's makers did was alter what they suggested it be used for. Would you cotton to the notion of using a surgical and surface cleanser as a mouthwash? You might, but few people would, yet that's exactly what you're doing if you rinse your mouth with Listerine. Such is the power of selective disclosure of information and that tactic works to dissuade people from accepting the messages of competitors as well as to get them to accept one's own message(s).​

Pulling the three types of power together to "buy" an election
In the 21st century, as always, successful political leaders are "storytellers." Not only are we seduced by stories (that’s why we like books, movies and theater), but we invariably place stories above price and quality. We often justify a lack of or excess of those attributes with stories. For instance, we always have a story for why we must pay the high cost for a Starbucks coffee, or for a high-priced Apple computer, for a higher cost FedEx shipment, why it "makes sense" buy a BMW or buy a 4K square foot home for just one or two people, or to justify skyrocketing tuitions at colleges and universities. Yet, all the leaders of the organizations promoting the things listed know how to tell their story, how to spin the tale of the "goodness" of that for which they advocate so as to capture our emotions, thereby inspiring to in our own minds justify and do that which may not by any dispassionate analysis is not at all rational. Indeed some of those leaders are so good at it they they become somewhat of a celebrity in the process.

Therefore, it is my belief that today’s leaders must possess the power of "storytelling," that is, effectively delivering their message and having it be accepted by the audience. The power of charisma, along with the power of incomplete/limited information, and a dash of expertise, when they become the predominant types of power leaders master, can result in the leader being able to make it possible to "buy" an election. No longer does legitimate and coercive power hold the edge. On the contrary, in a world full of deceit and greed, unless leaders have a good "story" to tell and tell it well, no one will be willing to follow.

The Final Part o the Equation: Money
This is surely the part of my statement that folks focus on for it's quite often a transactional thing that's easily understood. Of course, as I said before, one cannot literally write a check to buy an elected office for oneself. The "buy" that I have in mind is that which I discussed in part earlier with OldLady.

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.​

If one were dependent on contributions from others, if/when one's message gets too far afield, the money can stop flowing. Sure, the "mom and pop" donors may yet mail in their $25 contributions, but that's not going to be enough, most certainly at the level of the Presidential general election.

The other aspect of the money is that when a candidate has billions of their own money at their disposal, they can without impediment flood the airwaves with their "Listerine-like" message that only tells part of the story, the part that makes them appealing. It doesn't matter if they asking one to, in effect, "drink household cleanser" when the message is one that voters crave hearing. It doesn't matter whether what the candidate promises directly, alludes to or hints at. His/her charisma makes people want to believe it. When some years later the stated objectives are not reached, well, that can be dealt with by offering whatever limited-information excuse is both plausible and at least in part true.

Conclusion:
So what Trump has shown us is that a sufficiently charismatic person (they don't have to be perfectly charismatic, i.e., possessed of every aspect of charisma as given in the presentation referenced above) who has a message to deliver can, no matter the message, do so effectively and have it be believed if they have enough money to fund keeping their message before people. As long as the message validates what folks want to hear or have concocted in their own minds anyway, the charismatic candidate will prevail as a result of the factors noted above.

​

Being a good candidate that people like is not the same as buying an election. Good baseball players can get a job working for Major League Baseball better than a bad baseball player. The people doing the hiring are the American public. The money is only a factor if one candidate doesn't have sufficient financing to get his message to every single voter. A presidential candidate can spend $500,000,000 while the other candidate spends $3,500,000,000. Neither candidate would have an advantage. That is where the charisma, talent, social skills, experience, connections and information come into play. Those are valuable to the office of president. The voters will certainly take those factors into consideration. However if one candidate spends $500,000,000 and the other candidate only has $8,000,000 then money is a factor. One candidate has sufficient resources to get the message out. The other candidate does not. Those other factors you mentioned make someone a good candidate. Raw talent can't be discarded in the name of fairness. That's asinine.

If there is one job and one thousand applicants that means 999 people are going to lose. It happens everywhere. You can't create one thousand openings for president. The person doing the hiring gets to decide, not the applicant.

 

[OldLady]

So THAT's why Listerine has always tasted so bad! Good to know.

This morning I started practicing saying, out loud, President Trump. President Trump. President Trump.
It's probably going to happen. There are a lot of people and a lot of circumstances to thank or blame for that, but I still don't think the tipping point is because he's rich. I haven't heard of a person of modest means becoming President since ..... Lincoln? Rich folks with rich friends end up in the White House.

I listened to Trump's rally in Phoenix last night. It was very comprehensive in its criticism of the status quo and powerful in its promises of a better world. You know I don't buy his snake oil, but objectively speaking, he's good, 320. He is very, very good, and as you pointed out he is a parasite on the rump of the Republican party, feeding off conservatives' blood that would prefer it not be him but want their policies enacted after 8 years of Democratic leadership. Could it have been done without 56 million of his own money? Maybe not at the start, before he had built a following. But as other posters have pointed out, the Dems have spent much more than he. So as much as I like to agree with you, I don't think I do on this one. Of course, it has to do with economics kinda, so I probably missed the point, as usual.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Elections could always be bought.

Well, more like pre purchased.

I thought this topic was about George Soros



.

 

[presonorek]

So THAT's why Listerine has always tasted so bad! Good to know.

This morning I started practicing saying, out loud, President Trump. President Trump. President Trump.
It's probably going to happen. There are a lot of people and a lot of circumstances to thank or blame for that, but I still don't think the tipping point is because he's rich. I haven't heard of a person of modest means becoming President since ..... Lincoln? Rich folks with rich friends end up in the White House.

I listened to Trump's rally in Phoenix last night. It was very comprehensive in its criticism of the status quo and powerful in its promises of a better world. You know I don't buy his snake oil, but objectively speaking, he's good, 320. He is very, very good, and as you pointed out he is a parasite on the rump of the Republican party, feeding off conservatives' blood that would prefer it not be him but want their policies enacted after 8 years of Democratic leadership. Could it have been done without 56 million of his own money? Maybe not at the start, before he had built a following. But as other posters have pointed out, the Dems have spent much more than he. So as much as I like to agree with you, I don't think I do on this one. Of course, it has to do with economics kinda, so I probably missed the point, as usual.

Obama grew up poor and wasn't super wealthy when he ran.

 

[320 Years of History]

I still don't think the tipping point is because he's rich.

His wealth isn't the "tipping point" or the whole "fulcrum;" it's one part of the "lever."


Off Topic Asides:

So THAT's why Listerine has always tasted so bad! Good to know.

LOL Yes. That's pretty much it.

I haven't heard of a person of modest means becoming President since ..... Lincoln?

Well, "modest means" is relative, isn't it, but, yes, Lincoln wasn't "loaded" (worth ~$20M+) as were the Founding Fathers, almost every President up to the mid-19th century, and quite a few other Presidents. Lincoln, however, was the wealth-peer of his Presidential contemporaries in the last half of the 19th century.

• Table: The Net Worth Of The American Presidents: Washington To Obama
  • Accompanying narrative: The Net Worth Of The American Presidents: Washington To Obama
• Abraham Lincoln Was The Anti-Obama, A Profit Loving Capitalist Tool

"Of modest means? Well, okay if you'd say that of someone who today is a roughly "entry level" one-percenter, something that in some parts of the country requires earning but ~$300K/year.

Obama grew up poor and wasn't super wealthy when he ran

He isn't "super wealthy" now either, but he is "comfortable."

 

[320 Years of History]

Being a good candidate that people like

Being liked by the people is one thing. One need not be "good" in any regard other than being good at being liked in order to accomplish that.

Being a good candidate that people like is not the same as buying an election. Good baseball players can get a job working for Major League Baseball better than a bad baseball player.

Good baseball players have a body of objective and relevant measures that support assertions pertaining to their anticipated performance in the future.

The money is only a factor if one candidate doesn't have sufficient financing to get his message to every single voter. A presidential candidate can spend $500,000,000 while the other candidate spends $3,500,000,000. Neither candidate would have an advantage. That is where the charisma, talent, social skills, experience, connections and information come into play.

I don't know if you didn't read what I wrote -- which is but a discussion of how consumer behavior (marketing) principles and strategies are applied to the political/electoral process -- or whether you don't understand it, or whether you just don't want to discard the romantic notions you have about the electoral process, or something else. Whatever the case, just as businesses purchase their sales by spending on advertising and promotional messages to convince consumers they want/need "the product" even though that product may even be harmful to consumers' well being or expose them to risk they aren't obliged to assume, with enough "coin," the same can be done in the political process.

There is ample research into how consumers behave when asked to buy something or not. In an election, it's just a candidate instead of a product that consumers buy with their votes. The consumer's mind doesn't function any differently, however, merely because it's a candidate instead of a tangible product. Look at millions of bad, silly, or "no better than anything else" products consumers have purchased over the years. Quite simply the objective quality or "goodness" of what's being sold isn't nearly as important as how consumers perceive it.

Chia Pets, pet rocks, mood rings, Pintos, Rolex watches, Hermes "anything," alcoholic beverages, and more. All of those things depend on emotional marketing techniques in order to create the seller's demand. The market segment that is most dependent on successful emotional marketing techniques is the luxury goods segment, and that is because there not one single luxury good that is a necessity. Luxury goods marketing (always a branded product) is always about convincing consumers that the luxury good in question is better at doing "whatever" than is a competing non-luxury alternative.

For example, a Rolex watch does not keep time better than even the cheapest quartz watch which can easily be put in a case and mounted on a bracelet that is every bit the equal of those Rolex use. One can buy such a quartz watch for approximately $150 - $300. Be that as it may, people actually think Rolex watches are better. They think that because of Rolex's messages, messages purchased from "Madison Ave's" best advertisers and promoters, stating that it is better and because consumers have incomplete information and because consumers are more than willing to use price as a surrogate for merit. (That last aspect isn't obviously "in play" in an election, but it is there in some subtle ways that are beyond the scope of this discussion.)

To close, I suggest you and other doubters take some time and look over the research into how marketers use psychology's learnings to manipulate consumer behavior and then think about how those principles can be extrapolated to the electoral process. Those principles are the very one's Trump has adroitly applied to his entire candidacy. About the only thing it takes to apply those principles to a candidacy is money, the money needed to air the influencing messages.

• A Research on Influencing Factors of Consumer Purchasing Behaviors in Cyberspace
  
• Consumer Buying Behaviour – A Literature Review
  
• Consumer Behavior and Marketing
• The myth of the ethical consumer - do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?
  
• Effective advertising and its influence on consumer buying behavior
  
• Persuasion Marketing
• PERSUASION IN THE MARKETPLACE How Theories of Persuasion Apply to Marketing and Advertising
  
• Dr. Robert Cialdini and 6 principles of persuasion
  
• Persuasive Marketing: An Investigation of the Persuasive Effectiveness of Differing Media to Attract Individuals to Advertised Events at the University of Central Florida
  
• Change the Way You Persuade
  
• 6 Ways Your Customers Behave Irrationally & What You Can Learn From It
  
• 10 Ways to Convert More Customers USING PSYCHOLOGY
  
• Consumer Behavior: How People Make Buying Decisions

You see what good business people, good marketers, do for a living is figure out how to apply what the social sciences know about human behavior and thought processes to the goal of getting people to behave as the marketer wants rather than in a purely rational way. Nobody is better at that than are luxury goods and services marketers/providers. It's all about how people feel, not how they think. Thinking rationally, critically, is the last thing such marketers want consumers to do, but it takes a lot of money to get consumers to do that.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Elections can only be bought if the majority of the public are corrupt and willing to accept promises up front.

If elections can be bought what difference does it make if it is bought by one person or several? The result is the same either way.