So It Doesn't Bother Anyone That Over 90% of the Winning Candiates...

[Little-Acorn]

So It Doesn't Bother Anyone That Over 90% of the Winning Candiates...
...Are the ones with the most money?

Nope.

While Democrats tend to get most of their donated money from rich billionaires, big unions, bailed-out banks and companies, illegal big-money foreign donors trying to influence American elections etc., Republicans get more donations from small donors, families, small businesses etc. as well as big ones.

A lot more people like Republicans and their agenda, than like the big-govt, coercive and restrictive policies of Democrats. So they donate a lot more to Republicans.

Take the hint, Demmies. You were thrown out of office all across the nation for a reason. After getting six years of good, close looks at what you actually do - and how different it is from what you promise - the American people have had it up to here with your ilk. And they abandoned you, for good reason.

We won. Get over it.

And stay out of the way.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Rabi was right on money, limiting contributions equates to limiting free speech ..........................................

 

[Stephanie]

oh where oh where did Seawytch go after I post how much OBAMA raised and spent?

wanted to hear how much that bothered her

 

[occupied]

Neither party has the moral high ground on this issue but the party that made destroying election law their mission and now enjoys the support of most of the "dark money" will have a day of reckoning for taking the brakes off the big money machine.

They just had their day of reckoning. On Tuesday. And they lost, huge.

Get over it.

You dummies will not even claim your victory over our election laws now? The political map would look a lot different these days if conservatives hadn't mounted such a concerted effort to get our elections even more awash in big money contributions from unknown sources.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

You dummies will not even claim your victory over our election laws now? The political map would look a lot different these days if conservatives hadn't mounted such a concerted effort to get our elections even more awash in big money contributions from unknown sources.

Talk about a dummy will you admit to this ??

[Excerpt]
Campaign Spending Habits: Democrats v. Republicans

by Andrew Mayersohn on October 22, 2013
Pundits and partisans have had nearly a year since the 2012 election to speculate about how differences between Democratic and Republican campaign tactics helped determine the outcome. While there’s more to electoral strategy than spending money, deciding how to allocate its precious funds can make or break a campaign.

Using the Center for Responsive Politics’ overhauled database of expenditures, we broke down more than $10 billion in spending by candidates from the 2002 through 2012 campaign cycles to look at how Democratic and Republican candidates put their cash to use in six major categories: Administrative, Campaign Expenses, Fundraising, Media, Strategy & Research, and Wages & Salaries. (This excludes the Contributions and Transfers categories, since that money doesn’t ultimately influence the outcome of the election for the campaign that spends it, as well as the Unclassifiable category.)

Here’s what we found:

• Democratic candidates outspent Republicans on personnel. 13.7 percent of the money spent by Democratic campaigns from 2002-2012 fell into our Wages & Salaries category, which also includes payroll taxes, health insurance, and any other costs associated with fielding a staff. Republicans spent 9.7 percent, or barely two thirds as much. Of course, more money spent on payroll doesn’t necessarily translate into a bigger staff — it could reflect higher pay all around, a top-heavy payroll focused on senior staff, or a combination of the above.

• Republicans spent more of their campaign budget on fundraising and consulting. The numbers are almost a mirror image of the salary figures: Republican campaigns used 14.2 percent of their money to raise more money, against an even 10 percent for Democrats. The bulk of the difference comes from the fundraising consulting subcategory, where Republicans outspent Democrats by a ratio of nearly 2-to-1 (5.8 percent to 3.1 percent). Republicans also had a substantial edge in the media consulting and campaign consulting subcategories, which — along with the higher Democratic payrolls — may indicate that Republicans outsource some campaign functions that Democrats keep in house.

• Republican campaigns rely more heavily on direct mail, Democrats on new media. Perhaps reflecting party demographics, Democrats and Republicans favored different methods of reaching out to voters. Republican campaigns put 13.6 percent of their money into direct mail versus 9.4 percent for Democratic candidates; Democrats, meanwhile, spent almost three times as much on Web advertising as Republicans (2.6 percent to 0.9 percent). While that figure reflects all cycles since 2002, the gap in Web spending was actually even larger in the past cycle — a fact that probably comes as no surprise to Republican consultants who rued the GOP’s lack of web presence in the aftermath of Mitt Romney’s loss. Even in 2012, however, traditional media reigned supreme: web advertising was barely 10 percent of Democratic candidates’ media budget.

• Ultimately, the spending habits of Democratic and Republican campaigns were fairly similar. Both spent more than half of their funds on media, smaller chunks of money on fundraising, salaries, and administrative expenses, and the remainder on campaign and strategy expenses. The resemblance even extends to spending on big subcategories like polling and surveys (1.9 percent for Republicans, 2.2 percent for Democrats) and travel and lodging (4.5 percent for Republicans, 4.8 percent for Democrats). Whatever else may divide them, Democratic and Republican candidates appear to run their races using the same basic playbook.

[/Excerpt]

Wait look, at actual nasty ads(known as Media), the Dems out spend the Repubs .........................

 

[occupied]

You dummies will not even claim your victory over our election laws now? The political map would look a lot different these days if conservatives hadn't mounted such a concerted effort to get our elections even more awash in big money contributions from unknown sources.

Talk about a dummy will you admit to this ??

[Excerpt]
Campaign Spending Habits: Democrats v. Republicans

by Andrew Mayersohn on October 22, 2013
Pundits and partisans have had nearly a year since the 2012 election to speculate about how differences between Democratic and Republican campaign tactics helped determine the outcome. While there’s more to electoral strategy than spending money, deciding how to allocate its precious funds can make or break a campaign.

Using the Center for Responsive Politics’ overhauled database of expenditures, we broke down more than $10 billion in spending by candidates from the 2002 through 2012 campaign cycles to look at how Democratic and Republican candidates put their cash to use in six major categories: Administrative, Campaign Expenses, Fundraising, Media, Strategy & Research, and Wages & Salaries. (This excludes the Contributions and Transfers categories, since that money doesn’t ultimately influence the outcome of the election for the campaign that spends it, as well as the Unclassifiable category.)

Here’s what we found:

• Democratic candidates outspent Republicans on personnel. 13.7 percent of the money spent by Democratic campaigns from 2002-2012 fell into our Wages & Salaries category, which also includes payroll taxes, health insurance, and any other costs associated with fielding a staff. Republicans spent 9.7 percent, or barely two thirds as much. Of course, more money spent on payroll doesn’t necessarily translate into a bigger staff — it could reflect higher pay all around, a top-heavy payroll focused on senior staff, or a combination of the above.

• Republicans spent more of their campaign budget on fundraising and consulting. The numbers are almost a mirror image of the salary figures: Republican campaigns used 14.2 percent of their money to raise more money, against an even 10 percent for Democrats. The bulk of the difference comes from the fundraising consulting subcategory, where Republicans outspent Democrats by a ratio of nearly 2-to-1 (5.8 percent to 3.1 percent). Republicans also had a substantial edge in the media consulting and campaign consulting subcategories, which — along with the higher Democratic payrolls — may indicate that Republicans outsource some campaign functions that Democrats keep in house.

• Republican campaigns rely more heavily on direct mail, Democrats on new media. Perhaps reflecting party demographics, Democrats and Republicans favored different methods of reaching out to voters. Republican campaigns put 13.6 percent of their money into direct mail versus 9.4 percent for Democratic candidates; Democrats, meanwhile, spent almost three times as much on Web advertising as Republicans (2.6 percent to 0.9 percent). While that figure reflects all cycles since 2002, the gap in Web spending was actually even larger in the past cycle — a fact that probably comes as no surprise to Republican consultants who rued the GOP’s lack of web presence in the aftermath of Mitt Romney’s loss. Even in 2012, however, traditional media reigned supreme: web advertising was barely 10 percent of Democratic candidates’ media budget.

• Ultimately, the spending habits of Democratic and Republican campaigns were fairly similar. Both spent more than half of their funds on media, smaller chunks of money on fundraising, salaries, and administrative expenses, and the remainder on campaign and strategy expenses. The resemblance even extends to spending on big subcategories like polling and surveys (1.9 percent for Republicans, 2.2 percent for Democrats) and travel and lodging (4.5 percent for Republicans, 4.8 percent for Democrats). Whatever else may divide them, Democratic and Republican candidates appear to run their races using the same basic playbook.

[/Excerpt]

Wait look, at actual nasty ads(known as Media), the Dems out spend the Repubs .........................

You guys never count the dark money issue ads as contributing to republican victories. Why is that? Some of them are as nasty as it gets because no candidate has to answer for their content.

 

[Spoonman]

considering the left claims to be against the rich and money in politics it sure didn;t stop them from voting for the rich democrats

 

[occupied]

considering the left claims to be against the rich and money in politics it sure didn;t stop them from voting for the rich democrats

Is it even possible for a working class person to achieve national office anymore and it not be a noteworthy fluke?

 

[Rikurzhen]

I don' know what ever happened to Canada's scheme to do something like this but I do recall reading that their Conservative government planned on eliminating Federal Government budget allocations to the main parties and have parties rely solely on financing that they could raise from the public. The two communist parties up there screamed like banshees because neither of them were used to soliciting donations from their supporters, only the Conservatives had such an operations, asking people who believe in the principles advocated by the party to support the efforts of the party.

A restriction on campaign donations would kill the Democrats. LaTeisha and Jamal and Jose and Rosalita don't really have that much money, aren't in the habit of donating to political causes and, as this election has shown, aren't in the habit of being politically engaged.

Meanwhile the Republicans, the party of the middle class, are engaging with people who are better educated, more involved in civic life and better able to put money behind their beliefs.

Killing union donations would be a fantastic benefit for Republicans. We also need to kill in-kind donations, where unions volunteer manpower instead of dollars, for instance, to man voter recruiting, to walk neighborhoods and distribute pamphlets and engage voters. An in-kind donation is just like money.

 

[Papageorgio]

Nope.

While Democrats tend to get most of their donated money from rich billionaires, big unions, bailed-out banks and companies, illegal big-money foreign donors trying to influence American elections etc., Republicans get more donations from small donors, families, small businesses etc. as well as big ones.

A lot more people like Republicans and their agenda, than like the big-govt, coercive and restrictive policies of Democrats. So they donate a lot more to Republicans.

Take the hint, Demmies. You were thrown out of office all across the nation for a reason. After getting six years of good, close looks at what you actually do - and how different it is from what you promise - the American people have had it up to here with your ilk. And they abandoned you, for good reason.

We won. Get over it.

And stay out of the way.

If that is the prevailing picture republicans have of our system then they are not fit to lead, the big boys in Washington know where their money comes from even if you don't.

So why aren't the Democrats getting the money anymore? If what you are claiming is correct, then in 2006, 2008, 2012 the Democrats got more money, why did that change?

Neither party has the moral high ground on this issue but the party that made destroying election law their mission and now enjoys the support of most of the "dark money" will have a day of reckoning for taking the brakes off the big money machine.

Love how you threw in the "but," you were on target until then.

Explain why I am wrong or STFU.

You dumb ****, why is it that you sons of a bitches can't discuss anything without demeaning others, I am here for fun, you are here because you claim some higher ******* ground.

Dark money goes back decades, remember the Mafia and the Unions and the election law issues involving these groups. Both share equally if you honestly think either party is less involved or less culpable, then you are a bigger idiot than anyone really knew.

 

[SwimExpert]

Do you have a better solution? All the solutions tried thus far are failures. They are unconsttutional restrictions of free speech and they force a candidate to spend most of his time on his fundraisers rather than getting his message out.
No limits. More money in politics.

The better solution would be to amend the constitution with the following:

Congress shall have power to regulate the financing of election campaigns for federal offices, and the states shall have the power to regulate the financing of elections within the states, so long as such regulations are of even effect to all political parties and candidates. Any law regulating the financing of elections will take effect exactly one year after its passage.

 

[occupied]

I don' know what ever happened to Canada's scheme to do something like this but I do recall reading that their Conservative government planned on eliminating Federal Government budget allocations to the main parties and have parties rely solely on financing that they could raise from the public. The two communist parties up there screamed like banshees because neither of them were used to soliciting donations from their supporters, only the Conservatives had such an operations, asking people who believe in the principles advocated by the party to support the efforts of the party.

A restriction on campaign donations would kill the Democrats. LaTeisha and Jamal and Jose and Rosalita don't really have that much money, aren't in the habit of donating to political causes and, as this election has shown, aren't in the habit of being politically engaged.

Meanwhile the Republicans, the party of the middle class, are engaging with people who are better educated, more involved in civic life and better able to put money behind their beliefs.

Killing union donations would be a fantastic benefit for Republicans. We also need to kill in-kind donations, where unions volunteer manpower instead of dollars, for instance, to man voter recruiting, to walk neighborhoods and distribute pamphlets and engage voters. An in-kind donation is just like money.

Too bad for you the same amendment that you say allows unlimited election spending also allows for anyone to team up and organize for a candidate or party. Jesus what a sad pile of contradictions you people are.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

......
You guys never count the dark money issue ads as contributing to republican victories. Why is that? Some of them are as nasty as it gets because no candidate has to answer for their content.

Overall, 38 percent of the ads bought by outside interest groups were bought by “dark money” organizations that do not disclose their donors to the voters they seek to influence. In the heated battle for control of the Senate, nearly half — 48.6 percent — of the ads were bought by such groups, most of them conservative. In fact, 48 percent of pro-Republican interest group ads in 2014 came from dark money groups, compared to 23 percent of pro-Democratic groups’ ads.
Ad Spending Tops 1 Billion Dark Money Groups Buy Significant Share OpenSecrets Blog

I hate shit storms of hypocrisy and snot nosed little instigating bitches that want to accuse without looking in their own closet.
You do see where that says 23% of pro Democratic groups purchased ads from anonymous donor contributions.

Translates into : "Yeah we do the same thing, just not to the extent of degree that you do."
Which equates to,Yeah we burnt the hose down, just not quite as quick with so much heat, bet we accomplished the same thing ......................
Now let me criticize you for what we both do ...........................
SHIT STORM OF HYPOCRISY

 

[Papageorgio]

considering the left claims to be against the rich and money in politics it sure didn;t stop them from voting for the rich democrats

Yep, 91% of the time the most money wins, funny how no liberal cared about it in 2006, 2008, and 2012 and now only care about it in 2004 and now 2014. More whining, crying and panty peeing, from the liberal babies.

 

[occupied]

If that is the prevailing picture republicans have of our system then they are not fit to lead, the big boys in Washington know where their money comes from even if you don't.

So why aren't the Democrats getting the money anymore? If what you are claiming is correct, then in 2006, 2008, 2012 the Democrats got more money, why did that change?

Neither party has the moral high ground on this issue but the party that made destroying election law their mission and now enjoys the support of most of the "dark money" will have a day of reckoning for taking the brakes off the big money machine.

Love how you threw in the "but," you were on target until then.

Explain why I am wrong or STFU.

You dumb ****, why is it that you sons of a bitches can't discuss anything without demeaning others, I am here for fun, you are here because you claim some higher ******* ground.

Dark money goes back decades, remember the Mafia and the Unions and the election law issues involving these groups. Both share equally if you honestly think either party is less involved or less culpable, then you are a bigger idiot than anyone really knew.

I remember, we made all those laws to make that stuff harder to do and to criminalize trying to buy influence through electioneering but the billionaires just couldn't stand it. If you do not like dark money then why are you giving me shit for condemning it?

 

[occupied]

[

Wait look, at actual nasty ads(known as Media), the Dems out spend the Repubs .........................

You guys never count the dark money issue ads as contributing to republican victories. Why is that? Some of them are as nasty as it gets because no candidate has to answer for their content.

Overall, 38 percent of the ads bought by outside interest groups were bought by “dark money” organizations that do not disclose their donors to the voters they seek to influence. In the heated battle for control of the Senate, nearly half — 48.6 percent — of the ads were bought by such groups, most of them conservative. In fact, 48 percent of pro-Republican interest group ads in 2014 came from dark money groups, compared to 23 percent of pro-Democratic groups’ ads.
Ad Spending Tops 1 Billion Dark Money Groups Buy Significant Share OpenSecrets Blog

I hate shit storms of hypocrisy and snot nosed little instigating bitches that want to accuse without looking in their own closet.
You do see where that says 23% of pro Democratic groups purchased ads from anonymous donor contributions.

Translates into : "Yeah we do the same thing, just not to the extent of degree that you do."
Which equates to,Yeah we burnt the hose down, just not quite as quick with so much heat, bet we accomplished the same thing ......................
Now let me criticize you for what we both do ...........................
SHIT STORM OF HYPOCRISY[/QUOTE]

[

Wait look, at actual nasty ads(known as Media), the Dems out spend the Repubs .........................

You guys never count the dark money issue ads as contributing to republican victories. Why is that? Some of them are as nasty as it gets because no candidate has to answer for their content.

Overall, 38 percent of the ads bought by outside interest groups were bought by “dark money” organizations that do not disclose their donors to the voters they seek to influence. In the heated battle for control of the Senate, nearly half — 48.6 percent — of the ads were bought by such groups, most of them conservative. In fact, 48 percent of pro-Republican interest group ads in 2014 came from dark money groups, compared to 23 percent of pro-Democratic groups’ ads.
Ad Spending Tops 1 Billion Dark Money Groups Buy Significant Share OpenSecrets Blog

I hate shit storms of hypocrisy and snot nosed little instigating bitches that want to accuse without looking in their own closet.
You do see where that says 23% of pro Democratic groups purchased ads from anonymous donor contributions.

Translates into : "Yeah we do the same thing, just not to the extent of degree that you do."
Which equates to,Yeah we burnt the hose down, just not quite as quick with so much heat, bet we accomplished the same thing ......................
Now let me criticize you for what we both do ...........................
SHIT STORM OF HYPOCRISY[/QUOTE]



I do not speak for the democratic party but there is not a one of them that would vote against closing the dark money loophole, how do you think republicans would vote on such a thing? What's the matter? Upset that some of the republican dirty tactics are gettting used against republicans? Upset that democrats do not always bring library books to your political knife fights?

 

[Rikurzhen]

I don' know what ever happened to Canada's scheme to do something like this but I do recall reading that their Conservative government planned on eliminating Federal Government budget allocations to the main parties and have parties rely solely on financing that they could raise from the public. The two communist parties up there screamed like banshees because neither of them were used to soliciting donations from their supporters, only the Conservatives had such an operations, asking people who believe in the principles advocated by the party to support the efforts of the party.

A restriction on campaign donations would kill the Democrats. LaTeisha and Jamal and Jose and Rosalita don't really have that much money, aren't in the habit of donating to political causes and, as this election has shown, aren't in the habit of being politically engaged.

Meanwhile the Republicans, the party of the middle class, are engaging with people who are better educated, more involved in civic life and better able to put money behind their beliefs.

Killing union donations would be a fantastic benefit for Republicans. We also need to kill in-kind donations, where unions volunteer manpower instead of dollars, for instance, to man voter recruiting, to walk neighborhoods and distribute pamphlets and engage voters. An in-kind donation is just like money.

Too bad for you the same amendment that you say allows unlimited election spending also allows for anyone to team up and organize for a candidate or party. Jesus what a sad pile of contradictions you people are.

I'm pointing out that calls for finance reform will devastate union spending. A union is no different than a corporation when the issue is donating to political campaigns and they're no different than other groups who come together to spend their money on advocacy.

 

[Papageorgio]

So why aren't the Democrats getting the money anymore? If what you are claiming is correct, then in 2006, 2008, 2012 the Democrats got more money, why did that change?

Neither party has the moral high ground on this issue but the party that made destroying election law their mission and now enjoys the support of most of the "dark money" will have a day of reckoning for taking the brakes off the big money machine.

Love how you threw in the "but," you were on target until then.

Explain why I am wrong or STFU.

You dumb ****, why is it that you sons of a bitches can't discuss anything without demeaning others, I am here for fun, you are here because you claim some higher ******* ground.

Dark money goes back decades, remember the Mafia and the Unions and the election law issues involving these groups. Both share equally if you honestly think either party is less involved or less culpable, then you are a bigger idiot than anyone really knew.

I remember, we made all those laws to make that stuff harder to do and to criminalize trying to buy influence through electioneering but the billionaires just couldn't stand it. If you do not like dark money then why are you giving me shit for condemning it?

You claimed one party was more culpable then the other, I claim neither is better. You asked me to prove it or "STFU".

 

[depotoo]

Now that is the biggest laugh of the year!

Another liberal who pretends he/she has never heard of George Soros.

What a pack of liars!

Soros's money in campaigns and lobbying is a joke in comparison to the Kochs and Adelson. Media Matters is purely non-partisan in comparison to their pure propaganda and covert sabotage operations- fighting for pollution and screwing the workers, not for fact checking, democracy, and charity. The character assassination that the dupes believe about Soros is an atrocity...

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I remember, we made all those laws to make that stuff harder to do and to criminalize trying to buy influence through electioneering but the billionaires just couldn't stand it. If you do not like dark money then why are you giving me shit for condemning it?

Because you are SHIT STORM OF HYPOCRISY ......................