Perhaps the Citizens United decision wasn't quite such a big deal as some predicted?

[Nye Bevan]

At $64.8 million, Jeb Bush's Super PAC spending has absolutely blown away those of the other candidates. And guess whose Super PAC has spent the second most? Scott Walker. It seems that "money buys elections" and "our democracy is up for sale to the highest bidder" are oversimplifications, to say the least.



http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html

[randys1]

1. Yeah, you betcha!

[immoderate]

2. So money CAN'T influence elections?

I did not know that.

--imm

[Nye Bevan]

4. Did someone make that claim? Who? (nt)

[immoderate]

7. The person who said Citizens United was "not a big deal."

It's purpose is to influence elections. You say it doesn't. Or does it?

--imm

[Nye Bevan]

8. Obviously money can influence elections.

Or nobody would spend any money on campaigning.

My objection is to claims such as "our democracy is for sale to the highest bidder", which it obviously is not.

[immoderate]

10. It isn't? I did not know that.

What is there to stop the highest bidder?

--imm

[madinmaryland]

26. Even though the Koch brothers have explicitly said they will spend $900million in the 2016 election

cycle?

It does appear to be for sale to the highest bidder, just as it was in 2012. That doesn't mean, though, that the highest bidder will win the election. What it does mean, is that they will be able to affect a lot of election locally and at the state level.

[Igel]

15. Every time a person with big money behind them wins,

the response is that money buys elections.

Which is apparently intended to mean "big money essentially buys the outcome of any election it's involved in." The electorate has no will, the barrage of adverts necessarily corrupts the process and dictates the vote.


But there have been a lot of elections where the message pushed by big money hasn't resonated. The biggest spender loses by a wide margin. Then you hear crickets because it doesn't confirm the bias.

Election campaigns are like any other kind of campaign. It's hard to convince people that don't like deep-fat fried broccoli-flavored whale blubber to run out and buy it en masse.


It works yet another way: When the "correct" candidate gets the money advantage, then it's a good thing that money buys the election. Unless they lose, then, well, <chirp, chirp, chirp>.

[immoderate]

18. You're playing the same game. The key word is 'any.'

Yes, elections are the result of complex interactions, much of which defies prediction. It would be wrong to suggest that there is not a monetary influence in the flow. I don't see how money makes things better.

--imm

[Uponthegears]

3. How did I know

it was only a matter of time before the Hillary camp would start to defend Citizens United?

[Nye Bevan]

5. I've always defended it, along with the ACLU. (nt)

[Uponthegears]

13. Oh my . . . the ACLU

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-aclu-wrong-about-citizens-united/#

[Nye Bevan]

14. I find myself agreeing with the ACLU about pretty much everything,

including the Citizens United decision. Which I know puts me in the minority of DUers.

[Uponthegears]

16. Only because

(and I know this hits a nerve), the ACLU has become very much of an establishment organization.

Being both a long-time ACLU member and a civil rights attorney, I've watched the organization go from a defender of the powerless to a group more focused on high-minded principles. Such principles are great in an otherwise just society, but in a society fraught with economic, racial, etc. disparity, they are nothing more than tools of oppression. Citizens United is a perfect example.

[Rex]

20. LOL. This is funny watching someone love on a republican ruling, just like their fellow republicans.

Never mind the fact that states have been destroyed by the Citizens United ruling, we should just ignore that and pretend cleverness and intelligence are the same thing. Obviously republicans cannot tell the difference.

[Uponthegears]

45. But Rex

It's the third way!

[Odin2005]

39. And that is why I think the ACLU can go fuck itself.

[Nye Bevan]

41. Many people hate the ACLU for one reason or another.

They defended the right of the Klan to march, for example. Many people hate it when the ACLU defends the civil rights of someone they dislike. Your sentiments are not at all uncommon.

[Odin2005]

42. Money is not speech.

[Uponthegears]

47. Exactly

And there's the rub . . . yes, Citizens United is typical unprincipled RW intellectual fraud, BUT the worse decision was Buckley v. Valeo.

[stopbush]

6. I'm amazed that an asshole like Huckabee can raise $10-million

to fund a hopeless, bigoted-message campaign.

[Rex]

22. Why? Money buys votes now. Just look how horrible states are with pro Citizen United governors.

They just cannot buy the federal election...who knew?

[stopbush]

23. Here in CA, there a R group called the "Committee for a new majority"

Its goal is to turn CA into a Republican stronghold.

That idea has no chance of ever becoming a reality. But that doesn't stop that group from being well funded by conservatives, who will fund anything that is anti-liberal, even if it's a total pipe dream.

[Rex]

25. Agree. You could just make a gofundme page called

liberalsarescum etc.. and probably be a millionaire by the end of the week. Ugh. I hope Cali never goes back to Reaganites...they are still the worst group around. Okay, I kid they are nothing compared to the crazy tea idiots with endless pockets and coffers.

[stopbush]

46. Just FYI - nobody living in CA calls it Cali...

[Rex]

52. Well that makes sense I've never been there nor plan on it. nt

nt

[Trajan]

9. Maybe your response is just as oversimplified.

For whatever reason, overwhelming financial resources did not help well financed candidates ..

That doesn't mean it won't have an outsized impact in a future campaign ...

Throwing out the baby with the bath water ... Not wise

[Zorra]

11. If you consider that the people who cannot afford to support a candidate

cannot afford to not support the candidate, as in the case of Bernie Sanders, you might get a different perspective.

Small donors, many of whom have to count their pennies before they decide to see a doctor, are the only reason Bernie can be where he is.

Public campaign finance is the only fair solution to this problem.

[madokie]

12. Only a clinton supporter would suggest otherwise

[JudyM]

17. Winning is not the key measurement. It bears strongly on the influence during the term of whoever is

in fact elected. Whoever pours money into the winning candidate's election is richly rewarded with influence over whatever laws or policies s/he is interested in.

Certainly winning is required to get anything back on your dollar, but the measurement that matters is the record of actions that are then taken on your behalf by the winning candidate once in office.

[edhopper]

24. Yes this!

the OP doesn't seem to understand Amer8ican politics, or the ramifications of big money.

[JudyM]

40. That's what I thought. There's more to it. Thanks.

[Rex]

19. Well sure if you want to ignore entire states and their criminal republican governors.

Same people that love Citizens United, love and defend the TPP...nobody is fooled by their not so clever tactics.

[Nye Bevan]

28. I seem to recall that Jerry Brown was outspent by a considerable margin,

but still was elected governor of California.

[Blue_Tires]

21. Weren't paying attention the past few years, were you?

And the one time the argument breaks in your favor is supposed to nullify everything that happened before??

[Nye Bevan]

27. The oligarchs preferred Obama to Romney in 2012? (nt)

[edhopper]

34. Yes

but more importantly, they preferred a Republican Senate and House.
And that is what they got.

[polichick]

29. Actually, it's such a big deal that the people are standing up against it.

[Nye Bevan]

30. I expect most of those efforts to fizzle out,

when people look at the numbers and realize that there is not much correlation between how much a candidate spends and whether he or she wins.

[daleanime]

31. What ever you're drinking....

can I have some?

[Nye Bevan]

33. I'm a little reluctant to share....

but OK, here...

[gcomeau]

32. No. Bad.

Whether the person to win has the most money spent or not is not the issue. It's whether they are beholden, once elected, to whoever spent the money that was spent to get them elected.

Buying a politician is buying a politician, whether the winner was the highest bid upon or not.

[Nye Bevan]

36. How is a politician beholden to someone who spent money supporting them?

What leverage does the supporter have if the politician does not bend to their wishes when in office?

[gcomeau]

38. Depends how much money obviously.

What leverage does the supporter have if the politician does not bend to their wishes when in office?

There's this thing called "the next election" and whether said person will be spending that money with the same candidate or not. And a matter of any promises that may have been made to get that money *this* election.

[edhopper]

35. Someone has to be willfully blind

to not see the vast influence money is having and the laws passed.

[Oneironaut]

37. Jeb's doucheyness is insurmountable.

It doesn't matter how much money you spend. You can't get past that douchey bro barrier.

[ornotna]

43. It's been one caucus

Bit premature to make that claim don't you think?

[DFW]

44. Having a fortune at your disposal doesn't mean you spend it wisely

And it sure as hell doesn't make you a better candidate.

It's the "All the King's Horses" syndrome. Had Jeb been able to connect with the voters, his money would have given him a devastating advantage. However, if you're competing for votes among a voting bloc whose majority prefers Cruz, Trump or Rubio, then the most your money is going to do is get your mug on Iowa TV so often that people will be throwing tomatoes at their screens.

[Blue_Tires]

48. So why does the self-styled Dudebro Jesus have a sad?

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/694466992019996672

[Marr]

49. So you like this Congress? You like the way Governorships are currently spread?

[JPnoodleman]

50. The internet can equalize things,

The ability of money to control the hubs of communication is greatly diminished by the internet being infinitely large and free. People can organize movements and communicate without a filter and thus the elite ability to build and maintain whats known as the overtone window is weakened.

[Lithos]

51. bah...

It's a matter of leverage

It's really amounts to a cost per vote... Some people (Jeb) require more $$$ to get a vote than others...

You really need to look at Marketing 101 - there is a term called Customer Acquisition cost. Some products cost more to "buy" a new consumer than others. The paradigm holds to politics.

L-