The spirit of democratic elections is one person-one vote with everyone having equal power in the ballot box. If that ideal is extended to contributions then no one should be able to have more influence just because they can spend more. Why should you be able to buy influence just because you can afford it?
Why should you be able to influence more because you're supported by your parents/welfare and have lots of time to be out there talking to people, passing out pamphlets, ringing doorbells, etc while I'm working and can't devote the time to spreading a political message I believe in. Why should you have that structural advantage to promoting your political views while my structural advantage, money I'm willing to donate which can be used to fund advertisements, is denied to me?
One man, one vote is not changed. Here, I'll give you an example. No matter how much money liberals spend trying to convince me to support the racist position of affirmative action, I'll never support such racism. Ever. So go ahead, spend all your money, my vote is my own and if your message doesn't resonate with me then I'll never be influenced by your message.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the equal protection clause? It is a sad thing for republicans that there is no way to get their money flowing freely while simultaneously throttling contributions for democrats. Democrats (most of them anyway) would jump at a chance to make all of the money disclosable and limited to what a small businessman can afford. Only then can they take the survival of Joe's Garage or Melba's diner seriously.
quite a few ran on the tea party ticket in 2010. of course the libs did everything they could to label them a lunatics.
It's because they were lunatics and were backed up by some pretty deep pockets and promised to protect the .01% as a matter of policy.
It's the best answer I had to a stupid question, If I were to turn it around I could ask why big money (not you) can be allowed to shout down any number of regular people just because they can afford air time or lobbyists or sweet trips to Hawaii? A balance must be struck between big business and The People because it is clear from our present state that the interests of the two do not always or even usually coincide.
LOL. You realize that doesnt support your contention, right?Money can buy advertisements, which brings the issues before the voters that aren't paying attention....Are the ones with the most money?
91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins
The chart analyzes 467 congressional races held in 2012. Its findings:
* Candidates who out-fundraised their opponents were nine times more likely to win elections in 2012.
* Winning congressional candidates outspent their opponents by about 20 to 1.
And in these latest midterms?
Money Won on Tuesday, But the Rules of the Game Have Changed
The real story of the election’s campaign finance chapter was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors using outside groups to bury voters with an avalanche of spending. Both sides had plenty of support from outside spenders, but Republican and conservative outside groups outpaced the spending of Democratic and liberal ones. Democratic/liberal groups channeled most of their money through organizations that disclosed donors, while their more conservative counterparts relied heavily on secret sources funneling money through political nonprofits.
Some things seem never to change, and this year’s midterms reprised many of the same old stories. But there were also a handful of surprises, some of which may portend new dynamics in how elections are financed.
Every election since 1998 has been more expensive than the one before it, and predictably the 2014 election will follow that path, CRP has projected — though the total projected cost of $3.67 billion is only a slight uptick over the price tag of the 2010 midterm. Counting all forms of spending — by candidates, parties and outside groups — Team Red is projected to have spent $1.75 billion, while Team Blue’s spending is projected to ring in at $1.64 billion.
CRP’s analysis of last night’s results finds that in House races, the candidate who spent the most prevailed 94.2 percent of the time; the Senate figure is slightly lower, 81.8 percent. Despite several key upsets of Senate Democrats who, as incumbents, had the cash advantage, this is actually an increase from 2012, when 93.8 percent of higher-spending candidates in the House won, and just 75.8 percent of those candidates in the Senate could claim victory.
It also makes it possible for groups that support one candidate over another to lie about their opponent.
It's up to us to stay informed so we don't fall of the lies.
Really Rabbi? As usual you post like a little loyal goose-stepper who is too lazy to think for themselves.
Try to read this and see if you can counter this with some facts.
Donor Demographics OpenSecrets
Money is shutting down the voice of America, even yours, well maybe not yours, stupidly nodding and blindly accepting what the plutocracy has to say is not a voice. No amount of grass-roots street level political advocacy has as much pull on government policy as a few well paid lobbyists.
Read better next time, I sited equal protection to mean that they cannot make restrictive rules for Labor Union PACs that do not also apply to industry PACS. Do you have a problem with that interpretation?
Totally missed the metaphor but if you insist. The drunk in question owns the bar, it's the only one in town, he runs it for his amusement and has everyone on locked in with him. At some point metaphors break down into unrealistic situations. The reality of the situation is that there are several hundred lobbyists for every congressman in Washington, how can we speak over that crowd of professional influence buyers?
That's right, money is speech. You may have spare time on your hands which you use to make outreach to people to put your viewpoint before hem, but if money (speech) is removed from the equation, then those with time to spare get a structural advantage. Most conservatives work for a living so they don't have the spare time that liberals have and so liberals plus union members will have a lot more influence with their ability to get face time with strangers.
