John Arnold, the Texas billionaire who has contributed $2,750,000 to pass the top-two initiative in Oregon, is also the biggest donor to a PAC that has spent over $800,000 to help defeat California Congressman Mike Honda in this year’s election. See this story. Honda is a Democrat running for re-election against another Democrat, Ro Khanna.
What a wonderful way to run country.
All we’re missing are castles, moats and primogeniture.
Just what the Founding Fathers imagined, wouldn’t you say, Richard?
Glad you’re still here!
George Washington was the richest man in the United States during the 1790’s, so not too sure what he’d say.
Hmmm…well, considering he spoke only once during the Con Con, I think we might hazard a guess.
But do we only care what the richest of the FF’s may have thought?
I should have known.
Let’s resume this conversation on November 5, after we know what happened in the election.
If I’m understanding your implication you’re advancing a false premise, Richard, and you do it repeatedly. Sickening, obscene amounts of money in our political system are not an undesirable pollutant of democracy only when the result is an intended “win.”
Sometimes I think you defend the wrong direction in which we’re going in the hopes that just one third party or independent candidate will win on the strength of a sugar daddy’s fat bank account.
There can’t be any equality between candidates, even if the money is equal for all of them. Some of the candidates’ parents or grandparents held high public office, and that gives a huge advantage. Some candidates are already famous because of sport fame or show business fame. Some candidates are very good looking. Some candidates have friends with ability to help campaigns with labor, such as attorneys, campaign consultants, accountants. Some candidates are in megachurches or other very large associations, and so they already have a head start getting known. Why single out money when there all these other areas in which candidates aren’t equal?
I agree with Richard. My name is a multi-billion dollar gateway. Some us us have it and some of us don’t. 😉
How Google got its name:
http://usparliament.org/how-google-got-its-name.php
Let’s resume this conversation when Super Pacs are funded with contributions of eyeliner and Facebook “likes.”
If we can help transform the Super-PACs, then that will be best for the people as a whole. A Super-PAC is just like any other democratic entity.
my team can rotate the five generals like five basketball players in and out to take turns and give them rest. Ours is dynamic because of the “vote of confidence” system.
Our team elects the best team players and the Super-PAC must be able to prove the system can use the system in order to earn the votes.
Being a Super-PAC dictator and promoting a system which doesn’t hold the executives accountable, which actually imperils teamwork and cooperation, may not earn the votes they’ll need to represent the team as a whole.
But every democratic, religious and corporate entity has these problems and not just Super-PACs.
A super-PAC is simply a way for those in power to regulate some money, as primitive as it may seem, so the real problem is the regulators.
Everyone can benefit from advanced election systems. And should one person spend more money on the whole team of 10,000, we’re not concerned, because they’d still be out-numbered 9,999-to-one.
The root of the problem isn’t controlling money but it’s the voting system and election law.
Fortunately, because of the internet, we’re able to organize and consider all the potential remedies for these problems, for the good of the whole.
ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders since the 1200s in the English House of Commons — 700 plus years of ROT.
It shows.
—–
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Richard,
Your response deserves more than a sarcastic response, because your argument is dangerously simplistic. You’ve made it before, under a few different guises – “Money doesn’t matter.” It doesn’t matter because candidates can have other advantages over opponents that money can’t buy (see above). Or, money doesn’t matter because studies show that an advantage in the amount of money spent on a campaign doesn’t necessarily translate to wins. And more. And all missing (or perhaps intentionally avoiding) some important points.
First – do you think people who have amassed considerable fortunes did so by making investments when there is no expected correlation between the investment and a hoped for result? Do you think wealthy people got wealthy and stay wealthy by being stupid?
And the “result” – do you think the only desired “result” is only a “win” on a certain Tuesday? Do you think that is where political influence begins and ends – with who or what wins a contest? What about the people who might serve us well if elected but don’t even bother to run for lack of campaign funding? What about third party and independent candidates who don’t bother to run for office because they would have to run against a bankrolled incumbent? Do you think the 90+% success rate of incumbents in Congress is owing to good dental work alone? How about incumbents transferring excess cash to other candidates? What about campaign donors who contribute to both candidacies to ensure that they will have influence after the election no matter who is the winner? How do you feel about “money seats” (seats on committees routinely dealing with banks, insurance companies, etc) being given to freshman legislators to get them in touch with well-heeled contributors to prepare for their reelection bids? What about the effect that gobs of money has on setting the tone of a campaign, determining what issues will be emphasized in the campaign, etc.?
I’ve said this so many times, but I’ll say it again…it’s hard to fathom how someone such as you who is ostensibly dedicated to fair ballot access and fair democratic elections can so blithely dismiss the corrupting influence that money has had on our political process, and how that corruption is multiplied in its effects by successful efforts to strip away campaign finance regulation.
And please…let’s not talk “public financing of campaigns.” Unless and until public campaign financing is accompanied by radical dismantling of the other means by which money gets into the coffers of political campaigns, public financing of campaigns will be essentially meaningless.
For readers who have gotten this far, check out this article:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/28/top-super-pac-donors-of-the-midterms-steyer-bloomber-singer-mercer/18060219/
Welcome to Richard Winger’s oligarchic world.
Regulations are in place for limiting money but they don’t do any good. The simple problem is the mechanics of the voting system and the simple solution is to unite to fix it.
When you start letting money determine whether or not you focus on the mechanics of plurality single-winner districts you’ll just spin your wheels. Remember Ross Perot? He spent the money, he had an entire computer company working for his campaign, yet did he win many electors?
And in Congressional races, it’s very difficult to get people to cross over partisan lines.
Money isn’t the problem because we’ll still have divisive elections and disproportional results under plurality single-winner districts with or without money being spent.
The incumbent minority rule gerrymander monarchs/oligarchs LOVE having campaign finance restrictions — to keep their gerrymander opponents invisable.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. – to also bankrupt the usual suspect special interest gangs.
Then you subscribe to the theory that wealthy people who pour money onto the electoral process are doing so because they:
a) are inherently stupid or
b) want to try being poor and find that throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars into the toilet is the quickest way to achieve poverty or
c) can’t find a slot machine which accepts 10,000 dollar bills dor each throw.
You think money isn’t a problem in this country’s political system?
Are you corrupt?
Well, you might turn it around. The problem is a “lack of money” for third parties and independents (real ones, not pseudo independents). Those candidates that have got it (Reps and Dems), gets it! Better than public financing of campaigns would be limitations on amounts spent. But, that too would be extremely difficult to enforce – and who gets to decide how much is too much? About the only realistic way to limit spending on campaigns is to make the campaign periods much shorter with late summer primaries.
Wow! Why are we letting the people off the hook so easily. It’s their (our) fault for not paying attention ie, lack of knowledge of issues, low voter turnout, apathetic voters not challenging carpet baggers etc.
Come on folks, don’t scapegoat the money and let you and your neighbors off so easy.
Kent Bernbeck