Last week, at David and Charles Koch’s annual winter meeting near Palm Springs, California, it was announced that the Koch Brothers’ political organization would spend close to $900 million on the 2016 election. If this goal is met, the group of corporate leaders will spend far more than the Republican Party and its congressional campaign committees spent, combined, in the 2012 campaign.
Originally shared by +Susan Stone
“Fascism is rising in America”: The Koch brothers and the depressing demise of democracy
We’re still paying the price for Citizens United, and our oligarchs are poised to capture even more political power
Just because a side spends a butt load of money, doesn't mean that there is only one party running a candidate. You still get to vote for who you want (and maybe a party spending that obscene an amount of money is want makes someone vote for the other guy).
This isn't a "party" running a candidate… this is private individuals/corps running candidate(s).
+Paul Spoerry
I understand, but it still holds that you don't have to vote for their puppet. Since it is private citizens spending this money, and not a political organization, shouldn't that mean a broadening of democracy? Plus to restrict what a private citizen can and cannot waste their money on is truly the restricting of democracy, no?
This has nothing to do with party either. I'd have this stance if it were Democrat supporters doing this (which they actually have been doing all along, it's called the media and Hollywood).
BTW I thought it funny that they instantly rolled out the 'fascist' label since it was Republican supporters. Just the aforementioned media trying it's hardest to couple Republican with Fascism (again).
I did snicker at how they threw out Fascist… since that was a term that up til this point was typically Republicans throwing around.
I do not think private individuals should be able to donate as much money as they want (and certainly not without having to disclose it). True democracy works when everyone stands on equal footing. When dollars equal power only the ultra-wealthy have true voting power. I also do not buy that corporations are covered by free speech.
+Paul Spoerry
Are they spending the corporation's money, or is it their own funds? I was never clear on that.
I'm definitely not in favor of unlimited spending by a campaign. I've always said that there should be some kind of cap on what a campaign can spend, no matter how much money it raises. However, you can't penalize a campaign against it's cap limit, for what outside forces spend.
This brings up the problem of abuse of the system. In a cap limited political campaign system, a rival can hamstring it's competitor, by having shell organizations spending the cap-limit of the other side, at the onset on ineffectual ads and the like. That prevents their opponents of being able to wage any kind of fight.
This is one of those tuff issues. There isn't one simple solution and any solution will leave all sides unhappy.
Simple solution: remove all campaign finance. Add a small political tax to federal taxes, any party gets the equal split of the money. Problem solved.
+Paul Spoerry
However that doesn't stop private citizens and outside organizations not connected directly to the campaign, from spend zillions and flooding the country with political nonsense backing their candidate of choice with unsolicited and unofficial garbage. The only difference is you won't get that annoying tag at the end of the ad saying 'I approve this message'.
Unless you're willing to stifle all political expression on the part of the public, and that is a very dangerous road to start down.
No I'm saying we make that illegal. Take corrupt money out of the political process. The only people who would cry foul of their free speech are those who have more financial capital to spend buying politicians than the rest of us.
+Paul Spoerry
So no political money at all? How are they suppose to run a campaign that gets their message out? It's tuff, you need to let them reach the public, not abuse the fact that some people have much deeper pockets than others, and yet allow the outside public to still voice their opinion on the candidates (without having that outside spending count against the official campaign).
BTW, I was thinking about the political tax suggestion. The problem there is that now you are forcing people to make political contributions whether or not they want to. I don't see that flying with the American public.
They'd get their campaign money from taxes.
I suppose that's a fair point about outside opinion… but that just muddies the waters too. I saw let the opposition make those points. If not we just have big money continuing to pollute the political process.
The American public already pays for all sorta of public service type of things (and that's what our elected officials are supposed to be right?): roads, police, firemen, the largest military force in the world, the salary of Congress, Senate, President, etc.
+Paul Spoerry
Yeah, but making people contribute to political campaigns is bad news. It's a dark road to go running down w/o a flashlight. Especially if it's a special tax labeled as political campaign support (and if you aren't up front about it or burry it as or within another tax, when they discover it, and they always discover these things, the fit is gonna hit the shan).
I just think it's a big difference between paying tax to support our infrastructure, public building and services, or the military, and paying tax to support political campaigns. People are real funny about their politics, and I don't think they would like anyone other than themselves to decide where their political donations go to.
Well… I wouldn't see it as a political donation. In fact it' wouldn't not be a donation, it would be required. Individual politics would have nothing to do with it since the money would be disbursed evenly between candidates. I personally don't see how infrastructure is any different than politics. Our taxes pay their salaries.
+Paul Spoerry
The two things you point to as reasons why it's a good system are exactly what the people would find unpalatable about it. You are forcing them to give up this money to something they already find detestable, and second, on top of that they can't direct where that money would go. A staunch member of either party would never tolerate their money not being guaranteed to support the candidate of their prescribed party (especially since you have liberated those funds from them at gun point).
Don't take it the wrong way. I'm not saying that the idea is rubbish, I just think there is serious tinkering and major obstacles to overcome to allow it any chance of adoption, much less success (and that would be the case with any plan currently on offer to fix this nightmare).
Oh I don't think either of the two major parties endorse it +West Kagle. They both pull in too much from all the money-in-politics as it is now.
"You are forcing them to give up this money to something they already find detestable"… seems to me that what the little guy finds detestable is that his dollar and vote don't really count for much in comparison to those who can essentially buy votes. Doing it this way would resolve that.
"…and second, on top of that they can't direct where that money would go." I would think that a tax based, evenly distributed to candidate system would be much much much easier to track than current donations, PACs, SuperPACs, etc.
"A staunch member of either party would never tolerate their money not being guaranteed to support the candidate of their prescribed party" Except that they would be guaranteed to support the candidate they back… through their vote versus through their pocketbook (again, this is what makes the current system unfair in the first place).
"(especially since you have liberated those funds from them at gun point)" I personally do not think that money == votes. Well, I mean I DO… but I don't think that's how it should be. As for liberating it from them… we already do this for all sorta of beneficial services that support the common good. Disallowing the super rich to essentially buy our government out from underneath us seem, at least to me, to be in support of the common good.
+Paul Spoerry
I don't think I'm making my point on the determination of where the funds go question clearly enough. I understand that it looks nice and sounds very egalitarian, everyone gets an equal share of the loot, but it's not that simple.
Hypothetical situation: there are two campaigns in a political race, Democrat and Republican. The population has lined up behind one of these two candidates. 70% support the Democrat, and 30% support the Republican. Everyone was compelled to contribute to the 'political campaign equality fund'. Each campaign gets an even split, 50/50. That means 20% of the voters had what they put in the pot going to the candidate they oppose (not acceptable even if it were .001% of voters unintentionally backing the 'other guy').
Even though it is not a likely scenario, it shouldn't even be something that could be possible in any plane of existence (and that goes with out saying, as I said earlier, that people want to be free to give or not to give where politics are concerned and when they do choose to give to hand the money directly to the campaign of their choice, to make sure it goes where they intend it).
IDK, I think were going to remain on the opposite sides of this. Not in disagreement in the fact that something needs to be done, but that this particular solution is, in my eyes, too socialistic, and people like complete control when it comes to issues of politics..
The discussion, as always has been a good one. I'll give you last ups to make a case for the issue. Hit me with a good one. 😉
hehehe… no last ups needed, good convo all around +West Kagle.
I think I heard you clearly… maybe we just don't align on this issue. I mean, even though I don't drive the hard to get to highways in the Ozarks here in Missouri, I know my tax dollars go toward that. IMHO it's just the same… and perhaps if people are that charged up maybe that's part of the problem? I mean if we have two parties and 80% of the people like guy A and 20% like guy B (I wish it were always that clear cut) what difference does it make if they get equal share of campaign finance? Guy A would still win because he was the clear winner right? I hear what you're saying… that people believe that they should have ultimate control of where the money goes but I also think that's what's corrupting politics. Because the people with lots of money wants LOTS of money to go in a particular direction… because then they own them.
+Paul Spoerry
Yea, I know what you're saying about people getting too charged up on an issue like this. That's what make this such a complex and divisive problem. Political races, political discussions, and politics in general almost always seem to bring out the worst in people.
+West Kagle We have media outlets intentionally playing to the edges of the political spectrum (because they're the ones who will make the most noise) too… and that certainly doesn't help.
+Paul Spoerry
True. Sitting on the edges of the spectrum is almost never good. You usually find real unsavory elements there. Sitting in the direct middle is not good either, I mean you need to stand somewhere or you're standing nowhere (boy, that sounded cliché and cheesy).
I am firmly on the right in the political spectrum (which is why knuckleheads on YouTube love to call me a Nazi; they always try to equate right-wing with National Socialism), but I don't like to completely shut out the left. It's like cutting out one of the hemispheres of your brain (though again, people keep telling me I started out with only half a brain so….).
Anyway, point being is, like anything in life, the key is some kind of moderation. The sooner we all figure that out the happier, healthier, richer, and better off we'll all be. 😉
…….or maybe I'm just blowing smoke again, IDK. 😛