Dr. Phil Describes Health Benefits of Taking Your Vacation Time. Watch Now.

Valued Social Butterfly

Re: The rise of the political ultra wealthy

Message 271 of 274

Chasky I hope that comes to pass that all federal and state elections are publicly funded with candidates receiving their campaign funds based on the number of people who voted in the last election and the number of registered voters. In this day of the internet, it should be relatively easier for a viable candidate to get their message across to many voters without having to spend millions on commercials and advertising that many turn off. 


It got so bad during the 2012 campaign here in Ohio that I took to recording most commercial television programs, then watching them later and fast forwarding through the commercials. When I was watching live television, I would often mute the sound during the commercial breaks so I didn't have to pay attention to the political ads. 


I really believe that most voters are tired of the constant campaigning and negative commercials that do nothing but attack and propose nothing positive. Then we wonder why nothing gets done and the only thing congress can pass is gas. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: The rise of the political ultra wealthy

Message 272 of 274

IMHO this is a disturbing trend that MUST be reversed. When candidates become beholden to the wealthy money donors who finance their campaigns and successful campaigns for elected office becomes a money chase; what gets lost is the focus on the individual voter and what is in their best interests. I only hope that a more sensible supreme court will later reverse both the Citizens United and this McCutcheon decisions like a more enlightened supreme court reversed the 1896 Plessy Vs Ferguson decision allowing "separate, but equal" facilities when the court ruled against "separate, but equal" facilities in the Brown vs Board of Education in 1954. I just hope that it doesn't take 58 years before a more enlightened supreme court to reverse those bad decisions. 


Last month I was at a meeting of the Mensa group that featured a professor of political science who gave a great talk about the political process in the United States and the evolution of citizen involvement in politics. His talk was mostly on the process and not on any candidates or parties. He stated that the Citizens United supreme court decision ranks with the Dred Scott decision as among the worst in history.


At the time, many believed that the supreme court with that decision would settle the slavery question. But instead of settling the slavery question, the Dred Scott decision only exacerbated the issue and helped bring upon the civil war that eventually settled the slavery question. 


Perhaps citizen outrage and anger at this take over of the political process by ultra wealthy donors may force the legislatures and perhaps a future congress to do something that needs to be done - pass a constitutional amendment restricting how much can be spent on political campaigns and return the political process to where it belongs, to the individual voter. 


But perhaps in the short run, the best we can do is make sure that those ultra wealthy mega donors spend their money on candidates that cannot or do not win. In the 2012 election; one man, billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson, spent more than 100 of his own money in an attempt to defeat President Obama and elect friendly Republicans to congress. In Ohio's 2012 senate election, he spent more than one million dollars trying to defeat Democratic senator Sherrod Brown and failed. The beneficiary of that largesse, Josh Mandel currently Ohio Treasurer, became "damaged goods" and is perceived by many Ohioo voters as too aligned with the wealthy donors who bankrolled his senate campaign. He may not be re-elected to the office he now holds this year. 


Maybe all that money spent on mostly attack commercials against the opponent will cause many voters to get tired of all that and turn against the party running those attack ads. It seemed to work to a degree in Ohio in 2012 as many of those candidates who benefitted the most from those third party campaigns lost. 


Perhaps it is time for the IRS to investigate those mega donors like Sheldon Adleson and the Koch Brothers. Make them spend their money on nothing as their backed candidates lose elections to those candidates who listen to the voters and actually campaign to the voters and not to the monied donors. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: The rise of the political ultra wealthy

Message 273 of 274

Golf, let's hope that in light of this the general public will somehow see the urgent need for public funded elections similar to Canada's. All of the $$Billions$$ that Corporate America will spend in our elections will be included in the cost of the goods and services that we all purchase. We will be the ones paying for all that they spend, it will cost the corporations nothing to have this powerful voice in Washington and in our elections. Anyone agreeing that this is OK is being duped.

"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

The rise of the political ultra wealthy

Message 274 of 274

In yesterday's ruling, the supreme court delivered a death blow to any sensible campaign financing laws and declared that money is free speech. Therefore all limits as to how much a wealthy donor can contribute in political campaigns is now unlimited. Of course this turns elections in the United States more into auctions where it seems that the prize of the office goes to the highest bidder, not necessarily the best qualified candidate. Here is what a leading columnist had to say about this:


Money and deep-pocketed donors have always played a key role in American politics, but the wealthiest Americans are now flexing their political muscles more than at any time in decades. Consider the examples: On the right, the Koch Brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity has been airing millions of dollars in TV ads (see here and here) hitting Democrats in key 2014 Senate contests.


Just last week, a single billionaire -- conservative casino mogul Sheldon Adelson -- held what amounted to a political cattle call where four potential 2016 presidential candidates showed up. On the left, environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer has vowed to spend $100 million in the 2014 midterms.


And in the relative center, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has created gun-control groups and turned a single Democratic special primary election in Chicago into a referendum on guns and the National Rifle Association. On top of this activity, Wednesday’s 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision allowing individuals to donate the maximum amount to as many federal campaigns as they wish only increases the amount of power and influence of super-rich donors. Moreover, it creates a new incentive structure for political parties and candidates to spend even MORE of their time courting these donors. The big loser in all of this new money and new power to the wealthy: the individual campaign (more on this below).



Here’s one guarantee from yesterday’s Supreme Court decision: You’re only going to see more money in politics. So if you didn’t think there was enough money in politics before yesterday, then you should be happy about yesterday’s decision. Indeed, when you add the McCutcheon decision (eliminating the aggregate contributing caps) to the Citizens United decision (providing the blueprint for creating the Super PAC era) and the end of matching funds, we’re seeing a financial arms race in American politics.


Political spending from outside groups -- either created or bankrolled by American billionaires -- has skyrocketed from $193 million in 2004 and $338 million in 2008, to a whopping $1 billion in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. To put this $1 billion in outside spending in perspective, it’s almost TWICE what John Kerry and George W. Bush spent COMBINED in the 2004 presidential race ($655 million). And it’s THREE TIMES the amount John McCain spent in the 2008 election ($333 million). Another way to look at all of this money: Overall political spending on races (presidential plus congressional) has DOUBLED from $3 billion in 2000 to $6.2 billion in 2012. And in presidential races alone, the combined amount that George W. Bush and Al Gore spent in 2000 (about $250 million) QUADRUPLED to the combined amount Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent in 2012 ($1 billion-plus). And that doesn’t count the political-party spending…


Is this any way to run a democracy?


Read the entire piece at this link:



Report Inappropriate Content
Prepare to Care: A Resource Guide for Families download this free guide developed by AARP to help make caregiving more manageable. It includes information on how to have vital conversations with older family members, organize important documents, assess your loved one's needs and locate important resources.
Top Kudoed Authors