campaign financing aka beating a dead horse
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:40 amPolitical Crossfire Forums
Political forum discussions also covering current events, constitutional rights, and more!
https://politicalcrossfire.net/
campaign financing aka beating a dead horse
Page 1 of 8
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:40 amRe: campaign financing aka beating a dead horse
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:45 amI can understand that out of staters have interests in the state too but 70% of someone's campaign funds coming from out of state should tell the voters in that state who is likely to best represent the interests of those who actually live there.
Re: campaign financing aka beating a dead horse
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:47 amI'm generally not against stuff, if it is done with full disclosure/consent.
Re: campaign financing aka beating a dead horse
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:09 amCuccinelli can now get a show on Fox, he'll fit right in.
If the TP keeps losing power and losing elections, then IMO Christie will run for Prez in 2016.. If not, Christie won't run. If the TP continues to wield most of the power in the GOP I think Christie will realize he can't win, so he'll wait.
As for the OP.. Yep, the politicians talk and talk about state rights and autonomy. Here's a good way to prove it. State and local elections can only use money from within the state, or at least put a cap on it... 20%? Why should people in NYC be allowed to influence elections in Virginia? How is that fair to the people of Virginia?
If the TP keeps losing power and losing elections, then IMO Christie will run for Prez in 2016.. If not, Christie won't run. If the TP continues to wield most of the power in the GOP I think Christie will realize he can't win, so he'll wait.
As for the OP.. Yep, the politicians talk and talk about state rights and autonomy. Here's a good way to prove it. State and local elections can only use money from within the state, or at least put a cap on it... 20%? Why should people in NYC be allowed to influence elections in Virginia? How is that fair to the people of Virginia?
Re: campaign financing aka beating a dead horse
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:24 amRe: campaign financing aka beating a dead horse
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:42 amRe: campaign financing aka beating a dead horse
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:48 amI hate to be the prickly Canadian just bashing your shit all the time, but guys, your electoral system is f**k from top to bottom. Gerrymandering, a lack of a national electoral commission, Citizens United and the fact that your judges are elected (not in all states but in many) means that your elections are irrevocably f**k.
Those who set the rules re: elections are the ones who win, and people who win do so because they secure funding from non-constituents. This is happening everywhere.
Those who set the rules re: elections are the ones who win, and people who win do so because they secure funding from non-constituents. This is happening everywhere.
Re: campaign financing aka beating a dead horse
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:53 amRe: campaign financing aka beating a dead horse
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:57 amRe: campaign financing aka beating a dead horse
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:42 amMoney is not "speech." Money is money.
That aside, you bet there's a ton of money coming in not just from out of state but hey: out of the country. That's what's insidious about things like Citizens United and all these other ridiculous exceptions: the money can come from anywhere.
The reason a sleazebag like McAuliffe was able to beat the other sleazebag is that he had more money and was able to run more negative ads. That's all that matters these days: who has the bigger ad spend. If that's how you want your democracy to function from now on, good luck.
That aside, you bet there's a ton of money coming in not just from out of state but hey: out of the country. That's what's insidious about things like Citizens United and all these other ridiculous exceptions: the money can come from anywhere.
The reason a sleazebag like McAuliffe was able to beat the other sleazebag is that he had more money and was able to run more negative ads. That's all that matters these days: who has the bigger ad spend. If that's how you want your democracy to function from now on, good luck.