Moroun buys a politician

[Willi]

Money and Politics - Leverage, Extortion, Corruption -
Surely numerous "players" exist this election season

http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/po...nt?oid=2263345

[downtownguy]

Love the first sentence in this paragraph from the article:

First, a little background: Moroun, an 87-year-old bag of fertilizer waiting to be planted, has one goal in life. Not to help mankind, find a cure for cancer, not even to enjoy himself. He wants to prevent a new bridge across the river.

[Willi]

The great thing about MetroTimes is the fact it isn't the other 2 Detroit newspapers.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Money and Politics - Leverage, Extortion, Corruption -
Surely numerous "players" exist this election season

http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/po...nt?oid=2263345

"A" politician?

[Jimaz]

Vend-O-Vote

[Willi]

Campaign reform anyone - take the money out of the equation

[Wesley Mouch]

Campaign reform anyone - take the money out of the equation

You can't take the money out. And even if you could, it would be an even worse world where the incumbents and 'special interests' would have greater control.

Please, no, the cure would be worse than the disease.

Did I say that you really can't take the money out. Nobody can buy ads? Or would ads be reviewed by a government bureaucrat? Give money to candidates that get on the ballot? What about write-ins, like Duggan. No money?

Nice idea. But would never, ever work. Would only be a deeper trip into the hole of darkness.

Oh, and did I mention that its unconstitutional? The founding father's had this silly idea that people should be able to speak freely.

[Honky Tonk]

You can't take the money out. And even if you could, it would be an even worse world where the incumbents and 'special interests' would have greater control.

Please, no, the cure would be worse than the disease.

Did I say that you really can't take the money out. Nobody can buy ads? Or would ads be reviewed by a government bureaucrat? Give money to candidates that get on the ballot? What about write-ins, like Duggan. No money?

Nice idea. But would never, ever work. Would only be a deeper trip into the hole of darkness.

Oh, and did I mention that its unconstitutional? The founding father's had this silly idea that people should be able to speak freely.

Seriously? "incumbents and special interests would have greater control"? You mean the secretive super-pacs, handing out bags of cash under the darkness of night, have no self-serving interests? I find that a little hard to swallow.

[Wesley Mouch]

Seriously? "incumbents and special interests would have greater control"? You mean the secretive super-pacs, handing out bags of cash under the darkness of night, have no self-serving interests? I find that a little hard to swallow.

Seriously. Yes, seriously.

We know the SuperPACs have self-serving interests. Shouldn't they? That's their purpose. So if you're in favor of drilling for oil, or limiting Right-to-Work, or expanding Charters -- you get to buy your ad. And you get heard.

Exactly how does controlling how much money can be spent gets those voices heard? Who gets to decide who has a legitimate interest and who can be heard? Oh, that'll be the legislators. And you think they'll give campaign money to a fringe candidate who might challenge the system?

Yeah, try that and see just how special interests will control elections.

Our free-for-all campaign finance world is terrible and the worst system -- except for all the others.

[Jimaz]

The phrase "the best democracy money can buy" is meant to be facetious.

Apparently some folks need to have that explained explicitly.

[Honky Tonk]

Seriously. Yes, seriously.

We know the SuperPACs have self-serving interests. Shouldn't they? That's their purpose. So if you're in favor of drilling for oil, or limiting Right-to-Work, or expanding Charters -- you get to buy your ad. And you get heard.

Exactly how does controlling how much money can be spent gets those voices heard? Who gets to decide who has a legitimate interest and who can be heard? Oh, that'll be the legislators. And you think they'll give campaign money to a fringe candidate who might challenge the system?

Yeah, try that and see just how special interests will control elections.

Our free-for-all campaign finance world is terrible and the worst system -- except for all the others.

Let me ask you this then. Given my station in life, how do I get my voice heard? Or am I unworthy of having a voice? He with the most toys wins? The special interest pacs already ARE controlling the elections. Those ads aren't cheap.

[Scottathew]

Money and Politics - Leverage, Extortion, Corruption -
Surely numerous "players" exist this election season

http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/po...nt?oid=2263345

Thanks Willi! I usually lean right, but I'm staying clear of Matty on this one. This is on my ballot too!

[Wesley Mouch]

Let me ask you this then. Given my station in life, how do I get my voice heard? Or am I unworthy of having a voice? He with the most toys wins? The special interest pacs already ARE controlling the elections. Those ads aren't cheap.

Join.

Find your voice through your union or trade association. Unions, Realtors, Trial Lawyers, Car Dealers, NRA, Greenpeace. They all spend money advocating for their members. Sure, there are some big fish. But much of the money in these PACs come from aggregation of little contributions from money.

[emu steve]

Let me ask you this then. Given my station in life, how do I get my voice heard? Or am I unworthy of having a voice? He with the most toys wins? The special interest pacs already ARE controlling the elections. Those ads aren't cheap.

It has now gotten so that the typical contributor is drowned out.

If one thousand contributors make contributions totally 10M [[ave. 1K), it just takes one with big bucks to match it through the super packs.

What's the purpose of the average Joe contributing say 250 bucks to his favorite party?

The ONLY saving grace is much of these tons of money is wasted. Seeing a dozen commercials a day for a month is like eating pizza twice a day for a month.

[Honky Tonk]

It has now gotten so that the typical contributor is drowned out.

If one thousand contributors make contributions totally 10M [[ave. 1K), it just takes one with big bucks to match it through the super packs.

What's the purpose of the average Joe contributing say 250 bucks to his favorite party?

The ONLY saving grace is much of these tons of money is wasted. Seeing a dozen commercials a day for a month is like eating pizza twice a day for a month.

Exactly my point. Most of the organizations WM cited, are the special interest groups. Without full disclosure, you have no idea who these pacs are or what their agenda is. It's bad enough they're allowed to buy the office, but you have no idea what's going to happen to it after they do. The "elections" keep getting worse evertime. I have yet to hear a "man on the street" interview where someone says "you know, I look forward to being bombarded with low intelligence, mud slinging campaign ads every election". Yet, like Hedge Funds, they continue to go on, cloaked in secrecy. Don't forget Detroit's local unions backed Benny "let me borrow your car" Napoleon in the last election.

[Vic01]

...The founding father's had this silly idea that people should be able to speak freely.

I have doubts the they intended for $$$$$$$$ to equal a voice where a handful of million/billionaires can out "speak" the values, and good of, the rest of the citizens

[loveDetroit]

I have doubts the they intended for $$$$$$$$ to equal a voice where a handful of million/billionaires can out "speak" the values, and good of, the rest of the citizens

Amen. The whole process has become disgusting. And are the same littering bastards that planted all those signs along the roadway going to come back and remove them?

[loveDetroit]

Join.

Find your voice through your union or trade association. Unions, Realtors, Trial Lawyers, Car Dealers, NRA, Greenpeace. They all spend money advocating for their members. Sure, there are some big fish. But much of the money in these PACs come from aggregation of little contributions from money.

What if I join the union but disagree with who they choose to support? Now I'm voting against myself. no thanks.

[Wesley Mouch]

What if I join the union but disagree with who they choose to support? Now I'm voting against myself. no thanks.

I think you misunderstand. Your Union knows what's best for you, and runs ads in your best interest. If you disagree with your Union, you should reconsider your opinions and adjust them. If you wish, the Union has a re-education camp where proper progressive opinions can be instilled. The Union leadership was democratically elected -- and you joined because 50% + 1 of your brothers and sisters signed in a 'card check' campaign.

[[And for equal balance, know that the Koch Brothers run a nearly similar camp for right-wing wackos, except that Jesuits are excluded.)

But seriously folks, this article tells you a lot about how money is becoming less and less important in politics. [[Sorry its from Fox News, but I don't think CNN wants to write this.)

The idea that money controls elections is the single most dangerous idea in politics. Its an obsession of the left -- and the media. It is anti-democratic. What really is needed is for people to spend more on elections -- perhaps twice what is spent on Haloween candy, not half. Give everyone a voice. Don't take away anyone's ability to do their best to persuade people. Let them lie. Democracy works best when the public becomes engaged after electing fools. Its painful and expensive to endure megalomaniacs like KK, but the end result of State engagement and Voter engagement is worth it. The public does learn. Far better to learn than to be told who to vote for by a committee of other politcians who will write the rules of Campaign 'Reform'.

[Don K]

and you joined because 50% + 1 of your brothers and sisters signed in a 'card check' campaign.

Mmmm ... no. Unions tried to get card check in 09 but failed. Once a majority of eligible workers sign union cards, there still has to be an election.

[EL Jimbo]

I think you misunderstand. Your Union knows what's best for you, and runs ads in your best interest. If you disagree with your Union, you should reconsider your opinions and adjust them. If you wish, the Union has a re-education camp where proper progressive opinions can be instilled. The Union leadership was democratically elected -- and you joined because 50% + 1 of your brothers and sisters signed in a 'card check' campaign.

[[And for equal balance, know that the Koch Brothers run a nearly similar camp for right-wing wackos, except that Jesuits are excluded.)

But seriously folks, this article tells you a lot about how money is becoming less and less important in politics. [[Sorry its from Fox News, but I don't think CNN wants to write this.)

The idea that money controls elections is the single most dangerous idea in politics. Its an obsession of the left -- and the media. It is anti-democratic. What really is needed is for people to spend more on elections -- perhaps twice what is spent on Haloween candy, not half. Give everyone a voice. Don't take away anyone's ability to do their best to persuade people. Let them lie. Democracy works best when the public becomes engaged after electing fools. Its painful and expensive to endure megalomaniacs like KK, but the end result of State engagement and Voter engagement is worth it. The public does learn. Far better to learn than to be told who to vote for by a committee of other politcians who will write the rules of Campaign 'Reform'.

This is just laughably stupid. The Koch Brothers, and all the other big money people involving themselves in the purchase of elections are not stupid. If money is becoming less and less important, the Koch Brothers wouldn't have spent $250M of their own money on the mid-term.

Now there can be debate as to what the rules should and shouldn't be regarding money in politics, but to argue that it isn't important is just dumb. Smart people don't waste a quarter of a billion dollars on a strategy that isn't important.

[Honky Tonk]

This is just laughably stupid. The Koch Brothers, and all the other big money people involving themselves in the purchase of elections are not stupid. If money is becoming less and less important, the Koch Brothers wouldn't have spent $250M of their own money on the mid-term.

Now there can be debate as to what the rules should and shouldn't be regarding money in politics, but to argue that it isn't important is just dumb. Smart people don't waste a quarter of a billion dollars on a strategy that isn't important.

Thank you for that, sir.

[Wesley Mouch]

This is just laughably stupid. The Koch Brothers, and all the other big money people involving themselves in the purchase of elections are not stupid. If money is becoming less and less important, the Koch Brothers wouldn't have spent $250M of their own money on the mid-term.

Now there can be debate as to what the rules should and shouldn't be regarding money in politics, but to argue that it isn't important is just dumb. Smart people don't waste a quarter of a billion dollars on a strategy that isn't important.

I did not say money was unimportant. Only that it was becoming 'less and less' important.

Example:
What does spending $23 million get you when your opponent spend $9 million?
A loss in North Carolina [[47.2% vs. 48.9%)

Sometimes, money does not trump.

Banning money in politics is the single dumbest, least democratic idea.

In North Carolina, do you really want to deprive the Democratic Senatorial Campaign PAC from spending more than Tillis's entire campaign [[$10m vs. $9m) on their candidate? I think it is the right of the members of Democratic Party to speak their mind on their beliefs and in favor of their candidates and against those candidates they oppose. If you don't, who do you think should decide who is covered? Fox News?

[EL Jimbo]

I did not say money was unimportant. Only that it was becoming 'less and less' important.

Example:
What does spending $23 million get you when your opponent spend $9 million?
A loss in North Carolina [[47.2% vs. 48.9%)

Sometimes, money does not trump.

Banning money in politics is the single dumbest, least democratic idea.

In North Carolina, do you really want to deprive the Democratic Senatorial Campaign PAC from spending more than Tillis's entire campaign [[$10m vs. $9m) on their candidate? I think it is the right of the members of Democratic Party to speak their mind on their beliefs and in favor of their candidates and against those candidates they oppose. If you don't, who do you think should decide who is covered? Fox News?

100% publicly funded campaigns with caps on total expenditures allowed
Zero TV advertisements
No PACs or dark money of any kind

The costs to run a campaign have risen so much that anyone running for a federal or statewide level office either has to be independently wealthy or becomes entirely beholden to the opinions of the big donors that contribute to their campaigns. The average person is entirely shut out of the process other than voting for the person who took more money from the group of special interests you somewhat agree with as opposed to the one who took more money from the special interests you disagree with. Both candidates are bought and paid for to the point where they are listening to those groups and not their constituents.

Then the whole thing with PACs and dark money is an entirely different thing. They are these groups with cryptic names and untraceable monetary resources. They do a great job of telling you what you should think and who or what you should vote for, but we don't know why they are telling you that or who is telling you that. The current laws make the process so secretive, that it is entirely plausable that foreign governments could very well be providing funding to support stances that are in their best interests and not in the best interests of the United States...and nobody would know.

100% public funding puts everyone on an equal playing field. The electrician has just as much say as the CEO. It allows people from all walks of life the ability to run for office and serve their community/state/country without requiring immense financial resources or being required to maintain promises to those that do have those resources. In addition, it would break the two party stranglehold on our political system as every candidate from every party will have the same opportunity to share their stances and ideas so that voters can weigh and measure them all equally.

[Jimaz]

In short, the "best democracy money can buy" is the worst possible democracy in terms of corruption. It's an embarrassingly simple concept. It's also quite revealing that this kind of bribery is being promoted so heavily and openly in this corrupt age.