Conservative groups outspending liberal counterparts 4 to 1 on congressional races

www.washingtonpost.com... html

Thanks to the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling. We the people are done, corporations and the ultra rich rule, as we get the best Congress that money can buy.

Conservative interest groups have dumped well over $20 million into congressional races so far this year, outspending their liberal opponents 4 to 1 and setting off a growing panic among Democrats struggling to regain the House and hold on to their slim majority in the Senate. The surge suggests that big-spending super PACs and nonprofit groups, which have become dominant players in the presidential race, will also play a pivotal role in House and Senate contests that will determine the balance of power in Washington in 2013.

I hope the corporations pick someone we like to run the country!

-crosses fingers and hopes-

this thread will go one of two ways..
ignored (because the corporate takeover conspiracy of the united states is not worthy of ATS discussions...after all, thats how its supposed to be)
or, it will be countered quickly with how Obama is...a socialist..and etc etc etc (deflect and remove thought about the implications)

SCOTUS: Corporations are people
Corporations: Lets buy us some politicians
ATS right wing: Yay!

It doesn't matter if the corporations just try to continue their control of the government, the people now are more aware and active than they've been in a long time So long as the movement continues to grow it won't matter how much money the corporations throw at our opinions, we'll start to hold fast to our own minds.

I personally believe that Feinstein (D, Ca.) needs to be removed from office. Just reading her message in the paper booklet I got from the state was enough for me to realize that she is extremely pro establishment. I've looked into the candidates that are running against her, and most of the conservative ones sound like the stuff at first, but when you look a little deeper into their policies you'll find that half of them are still pro-interventionism, among other things, or just don't go into detail on the big issues, which just makes me suspicious.

So far Grundmann is looking to be my candidate of choice

The koch brothers and others like them are spending as much as they can to influence this election just like they did to influence the 2010 election, and what a mess they have made.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

- William Shakespeare

As always, I'm confused by the OP. Is it the position of the OP that elections were NOT corruptly influenced by money before Citizens United? Is the objection to the 4-1 ratio so far? If so, please be reminded that the Democrats choose their fund raising targets and strategies concerning where they will spend the money. It may very well be that the Democrat party doesn't believe that Congress is all that important any more, having seen what can be done with Executive Orders.

So is the objection to the influence of money? Breaking news from 1800. Is it that the Republicans have spent more than the Democrats in one part of the campaign, so far? Yawn.

I told you I'm confused. What's the big deal?

That is because conservatives have become nothing but the PR wing of Corporate America.

I really hope they just run a company instead of Romney, at least it would be honest.

Conservatism is lost because it based upon extreme ideas, it has lost it's sense of fraternity
and community, which use to be a big part of it back in the day.

Enjoy your royal butt pain and your obscured slavery

Originally posted by charles1952
As always, I'm confused by the OP. Is it the position of the OP that elections were NOT corruptly influenced by money before Citizens United? Is the objection to the 4-1 ratio so far? If so, please be reminded that the Democrats choose their fund raising targets and strategies concerning where they will spend the money. It may very well be that the Democrat party doesn't believe that Congress is all that important any more, having seen what can be done with Executive Orders.

So is the objection to the influence of money? Breaking news from 1800. Is it that the Republicans have spent more than the Democrats in one part of the campaign, so far? Yawn.

I told you I'm confused. What's the big deal?

I see the Kool Aide causes denial now too...

Neat!

They have to. It will take a lot of money to ween the Gov't freeloaders off the public trough they have been sucking from for about 50 years.



God willing, they will be the winners.

reply to post by anon72


Are you serious? Or just trolling?

reply to post by braindeadconservatives

I see the Kool Aide causes denial now too...

Neat!

Why not just ignore my post? What Kool-Aid? What denial? Will you answer any of my questions?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by braindeadconservatives

 

I see the Kool Aide causes denial now too...

Neat!

Why not just ignore my post? What Kool-Aid? What denial? Will you answer any of my questions?

Frankly, it is hard to take your questions seriously...

I sounds like you are brushing off the fact the America's journey to complete
oligarchy is speeding up.

Are your questions serious?

reply to post by braindeadconservatives

I'm sorry I created the impression that I was just joking. Please allow me to try again from a different angle.

I recall that Obama turned down public funding in his first Presidential campaign and raised and spent a good deal more than McCain. Do you think that government corruption by money was better four years ago and that Citizen's United introduced a new level of corruption? I haven't checked the numbers, but it doesn't look like campaign spending will be twice what it was in 2008.

Candidates always find ways to get money by skirting the edges of the law. Will reversing Citizen's United fix that?

What point does the OP intend to make with the 4-1 ratio? That Republicans are more interested in influencing Congress than are Democrats?

I can understand a concern about corruption in government, I don't understand the point in the OP. Is there more corporate bribery in the last couple of years? Is Congress more susceptible than the President? Perhaps the OP is simply saying that candidates shouldn't be allowed to spend more than X number of dollars and no organization should be able to help them in any other way. I can understand that. I'd disagree with it, but at least a discussion could be had.

Anyway, my confusion is serious and honest.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by braindeadconservatives

 

I'm sorry I created the impression that I was just joking. Please allow me to try again from a different angle.

I recall that Obama turned down public funding in his first Presidential campaign and raised and spent a good deal more than McCain. Do you think that government corruption by money was better four years ago and that Citizen's United introduced a new level of corruption? I haven't checked the numbers, but it doesn't look like campaign spending will be twice what it was in 2008.

It seems clear to me that this country is going down the wrong path, when private
entities have such a grasp of a public function. What is alarming about this figure is
it seems to be getting far worse, it also seems to be creating an imbalance that
should not be a component of this countries electoral system. Private money
pushing tailor made campaigns must be looking for tailor made representation.

It is now fully possible for one, or several individuals to virtually employ a person,
have them run as a politician and have that person rig the laws and political system
on their behalf.

The Gubernatorial race in Wisconsin is flooded with private money, big donor money
and some estimates are that ratio is 10/1 -

Candidates always find ways to get money by skirting the edges of the law. Will reversing Citizen's United fix that?

Yes I think it will reverse this new outgrowth of corruption

What point does the OP intend to make with the 4-1 ratio? That Republicans are more interested in influencing Congress than are Democrats?

I think it indicates that Big Donors, Banks and corporations are putting their money behind the
GOP. You stated previously that you think Democrats are not interested in winning congress?

That is where you got pretty funny - you really think Democrats are not interested in be apart of the
law making process in America? Then you slipped in an executive order dig... Really? Do you know
the ratio of executive orders to congressional laws???

Obama

2009 - E.O. 13489 - E.O. 13527 (39 Executive orders issued)
2010 - E.O. 13528 - E.O. 13562 (35 Executive orders issued)
2011 - E.O. 13563 - E.O. 13596 (34 Executive orders issued)
2012 - E.O. 13597 - E.O. 13609 (13 Executive orders issued)

W Bush

2009 - E.O. 13484 - E.O. 13488 (5 Executive orders issued)
2008 - E.O. 13454 - E.O. 13483 (30 Executive orders issued)
2007 - E.O. 13422 - E.O. 13453 (32 Executive orders issued)
2006 - E.O. 13395 - E.O. 13421 (27 Executive orders issued)
2005 - E.O. 13369 - E.O. 13394 (26 Executive orders issued)
2004 - E.O. 13324 - E.O. 13368 (45 Executive orders issued)
2003 - E.O. 13283 - E.O. 13323 (41 Executive orders issued)
2002 - E.O. 13252 - E.O. 13282 (31 Executive orders issued)
2001 - E.O. 13198 - E.O. 13251 (54 Executive orders issued)


Congress

Congress No Major Action Some Action Failed Enacted
106th (1999-2000) 7460 922 28 558 (6%)
107th (2001-2002) 7750 841 5 350 (4%)
108th (2003-2004) 7045 932 13 476 (6%)
109th (2005-2006) 9141 930 22 465 (4%)
110th (2007-2008) 9218 138 39 442 (4%)
111th (2009-2010) 9239 998 26 366 (3%)

I can understand a concern about corruption in government, I don't understand the point in the OP. Is there more corporate bribery in the last couple of years? Is Congress more susceptible than the President? Perhaps the OP is simply saying that candidates shouldn't be allowed to spend more than X number of dollars and no organization should be able to help them in any other way. I can understand that. I'd disagree with it, but at least a discussion could be had.

Anyway, my confusion is serious and honest.

The most basic conclusion is that there is a lot more money in the electoral process
and that money is going to a particular party. this number has increased dramatically
since the SCOTUS ruling regarding citizens united

reply to post by braindeadconservatives

Dear braindeadconservative,

Thanks for the comments on Executive Orders, there's a lot I need to learn. Perhaps I was thinking of Departmental Regulations.

I was curious about what I understood to be your position that the Republicans were benefitting from the big money donations. I appreciated you looking up the Executive Order info, so I thought I shoud try checking the money at Open Secrets.

www.opensecrets.org... showed me that:
For 2011 and 1st quarter of 2012, Obama has raised $191,671,860 Romney has raised $86,631,381.
In the 2008 campaign Obama raised $745 Million, McCain raised $368 Million

www.opensecrets.org... said that:
Each of the four party campaign groups for the Democrats out raised that of the Republicans for the 2012 election cycle to date. Same thing is true for 2010.
www.opensecrets.org...
And when looking at the big money donors (tens of Millions of dollars) The top 18 either split their money evenly or donated more heavily to Democrats, as did 16 of the next 23.
www.opensecrets.org...

I just don't see any reason to think that the Republicans are the recipients of the big money types.

With respect,
Charles1952