http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/this-is-your-election-on-koch/ Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... well... I think we in America are well and truly boned...
Democracy in America has been dead for a while now. The public have no power on what, really, goes on deep inside the bowels of the political infrastructure. Sure, one can try and convince himself that, perhaps, he may change the country by voting for the otherwise party but, actually, all the American is doing is voting for a caretaker. A manager. What really runs America are actually the banks and corporate monopolizers. The public cannot vote on the Patriot Act. They cannot change the mind of the politician to halt the speedily destruction of privacy by the NSA. It's been "bones" for a while, now.
Romney lost more because of his own ineptitude... things like his Oompa Loompa spray tan: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! He flip flopped a lot - he started off as a severe conservative, then became a moderate, then became almost liberal, then went back to conservative - nobody really knew what he was doing or where he stood... not to mention he seemed like he was TRYING to alienate the non-white non-male voters
But the 47.2% who voted for Romney were, that is scary. My chief concern with Romney is that he was unable to control the crazies who dominate his party. A leader should be able to lead. I haven't seen anyone in the Republican Party who has been able to do that. McCain suffered from the same malady.
He did. McCain before him did as well. And in the end they both looked like flip flopping idiots and lost the election. Neither could control the Republican entertainment fed crazies (i.e. the Republican base) within their party.
Hopefully said crazies will hamstring the party again... because an all-republican government honestly scares me... I see a lot of corporate regulation going away... especially when said regulations reduce, even in the slightest sense, the profits of "major donors" companies... can you imagine, fracking and drilling with no oversight? Yikes...
This graphic is totally useless. It excludes money spent by "outside groups" except for the Koch brothers themselves. A real comparison of value would be to compare how much the Koch brothers spent vs other "outside group" spending. Here's the actual numbers: https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/cycle_tots.php About $1 Billion was spent by "outside groups" in the 2012 election, so the Koch brothers are responsible for about 40% of all "outside group" spending. Interestingly, that was the first Presidential election and second overall election since 1994 where "outside group" spending favored Republicans instead of Democrats.
Russ - fair enough, though that is still terrifying in its own right - that one group, with such obvious and aggressive interests, could equal 40% of the total spending... that's scary...
About two billion dollars was spent on the last presidential election by all groups. What the Kochs plan to do is spend nearly half that amount in 2016 by themselves, and let's not forget they routinely spend hundreds of millions if off election years too. And thanks the US Supreme Court, we may never know how much money the Kochs actually spend because they are not required to disclose and they don’t. It is more than a bit disconcerting that 196 individuals determine who can run for president before a single ballot has been cast. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/16/the_196_people_who_will_choose_our_next_president/ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/us/koch-seminar-is-early-proving-ground-for-gop-hopefuls.html?_r=0
You really think the tail is wagging the dog there? As if Hillary Clinton hasn't been a frontronner for the 2016 election since the first week of June of 2008, long before donors started spending money on her campaign?
Where is the tail and where is the dog? There is no tail and no dog. You think 196 people controlling who can and cannot run for POTUS is a small thing...really? Well the Koch's don't share your opinion. They are investing a significant portion of their considerable net worth to get their men into the White House, state houses, Congress and legislatures across the country. Clinton has nothing to do with the fact that 196 wealthy unelected individuals decide who can and cannot run for the presidency. Clinton hasn't been running for POTUS since 2008. Just because she is popular, it doesn't mean she is running or that she has secured financing for a potential campaign. If Clinton decides to run for POTUS, she too will need to secure financing for her campaign. These wealthy individuals are in effect operating as an invisible arm of government. Both parties have been soft on campaign finance and ethics reforms. But at least Democrats pay lip service to it, whereas Republicans have done and continue to do everything possible to advance the power and influence of the world's wealthiest individuals. Republicans on our Supreme Court created the current campaign financing mess with their Citizens United ruling in 2010. And what is more disturbing is that political donations have gone dark, meaning people like the Kochs can now donate unlimited funds to various political organizations in complete anonymity. The donations we see are only the tip of the iceberg. The money we know folks like the Kochs are spending is probably dwarfed by the secret money they are spending - thanks again to Republicans on our Supreme Court.
Below is a link to an interesting film documenting the influence and power of the Koch brothers. http://www.bravenewfilms.org/kochfilm_stream
Let me try again: using Hillary as an example, do you really think there is anything those 196 people could legitimately do to prevent Hillary from even running? Look, I get the issue of influence and I don't like it either. In 2000, it appeared to me that grassroots momentum would have carried McCain to the GOP nomination if not for core party support for Bush. But that doesn't come anywhere close to "controlling who can and cannot run". The money we are talking about here is 3rd party ADVERTISING dollars. It influences voters, but it carries no direct control over the candidates themselves.
Do you know how many people were candidates for POTUS in 2012? There were 413 candidates for POTUS in 2012. Now how why did we only see a handful of those 413 candidates on the ballot? Anyone with $5,000 can run for POTUS. But it takes a lot of money to become a viable presidential candidate. That is one reason why Romney chose not to run for POTUS this year. Romney is popular, he took 47% of the vote in 2012. But that doesn't mean he has the resources he needs to run a viable campaign. Do you? Do you support measures to remove special interest money from our political system? The reason McCain lost against Bush Junior was the lack of resources (i.e. money) the "core party" brought to bear. McCain couldn't compete financially with Baby Bush. While those 196 individuals cannot yet control who files candidacy papers, they can and do control the financial resources necessary to mount a viable campaign and win an office. McCain lost because, while popular, he didn’t have the money he needed to compete with Baby Bush. Baby Bush did and Baby Bush won. And you think that matters? And we are talking about more than just "advertising dollars". Though I am perplexed at why you think that matters or somehow mitigates the influence and power special interest money has over our government. You think the Kochs are making a charitable donation when they "donate" money to candidates who support their financial interests? The Kochs want government legislation that reduces their tax liabilities and allows them to evade environmental legislation. That puts money into the pockets of the Koch brothers. The Kochs are making an investment when they "donate" money to their various political candidates and causes, they expect a payback. If they don’t get the payback, the money dries up. Koch “charitable” donations to colleges and universities often contain conditions that allow the Kochs to select "academics" who will promulgate Koch's interests. Charity isn't so charitable in Koch world. Thanks to members of the US Supreme Court who have attended secret Koch meetings, the cost of running a competitive race in the US has gone through the roof. Unfortunately, money is important in our political system, even more so after the 2010 ruling of Republicans on the US Supreme Court. If you don’t have money, you don’t have a snowballs chance in Hell of winning an election in our system. And that fact is not lost on our candidates. If you don’t think there is an implied quid pro quo inherent in any political donation, I think you are at best very naïve. The candidates know full well what donors expect of them when they accept their money. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...paign-money/YQMMMoqCNxGKh2h0tOIF9H/story.html
