Money and politics: the $2.5 billion candidate

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121385/hillary-clinton-announcement-dont-expect-populist-policies

http://gothamist.com/2015/04/12/hills_hills_hills.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/u...p-news&WT.nav=top-news&assetType=nyt_now&_r=0

What are your thoughts on the extreme proliferation of money in American politics exemplified by the $2.5 billion candidate?

Can Hillary ever be expected to stand up to corporate interests and big banks that ruined the American economy given how much money she wants to raise?

 

so you think a candidate who has to run a $2.5 billion campaign is minute in comparison to all private advertising.

In fact, way to put it in context, without being a business of any sort, it appears Hillary is aiming to get the money needed to spend 1% of total private advertising in America.

What do the people who give so generously get in return, aside from an "I Voted" sticker?

 

And how does that person give back?

I'll give you a hint.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011...sions-stimulus-money-government-contracts-and

 

I'm sympathetic to historical comparison, but money has never talked louder and more inefficiently with record low turnouts and lots of favors that needs to be paid back.

The situation is getting much worse before it gets better. You could have chortled at a $2 billion election. Now one candidate wants to raise that much.

 

LOL

if anything, incumbents benefit most from private funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States

Do you even realize what's happening in your own country?

 

This is a strawman as well. Don't assume my position on this until you've read through at least this piece.

And way to skate over $6 million in money handed out. Responsible government FTW!

http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/a-radical-fix-for-the-republic

 

No, the problem is that bills and candidates are vetted with money, and people vote for politicians that spend 30-70% of their time lobbying favors and access for money. Even when there are votes, the contents of the bills are determined by moneyed interests.

To even be considered a viable candidate, you need money.

Good luck trying to beat an incumbent though, they have more money.

Even if you did and were lucky enough to get onto the slop of being a politician stuck in a cycle of repeated incumbency for favors, you'd just spend more time lobbying for money with access or favors to the select few who can afford to pay for your campaigns, and to the extent that there are votes, well the bills advanced have money attached, and every other politician you encounter will be beholden to somebody else.

This is why a Princeton University study concluded that America was an oligarchy, not a democracy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

You know what's really funny though? It's an oligarchy that benefits the Democrats who still somehow look good opposing it (I admit that my statement only reflects presidential campaigns. I have no doubt that all levels of American politics are corroded one way or the other maybe skewed to the Dems or Republicans--but always skewed towards monetary interest). This is why Hillary Clinton can chortle about raising $2.5 billion and whatever Republican candidate will be fighting for lesser scraps.