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?
$2.5 billion isn't a lot of advertisement. Total private advertising = 240 billion The government spends 1.8 trillion
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?
Could an old money dutchman single-handedly de-monopolize Northern industry, could a black Irish philanderer and vote stealing baptist hillbilly take us to the moon and get blacks the vote?
You might be talking about W: library at SMU, "Charge to Keep" references. Roughneck = Rednecks -> Hill Country = Hillbillies.
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.
So a guy who raised money for Obama had stock in a company. Later when he is a an African ambassador that company got a contract. That is your proof that we should protect incumbents with government financed elections?
$2.5 billion for this? <iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="512" height="288" src="http://video-api.wsj.com/api-video/player/iframe.html?guid=9CD7B95B-8DD0-4E9F-B724-B6C103CD6DAF"></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_awAH-JJx1k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
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
Yes, government wastes a lot of money. We know that. There are a lot of dumb subsidies. The problem is people vote for them.
It's just a coincidence... Just like the Monsanto Protection Act is a coincidence and all the others Yeap, the mighty vote... Government officials are up for sale and money spenders get priority over voters. But if you believe their donating that money out of the goodness of their hearts... I've got nothing for ya.
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.