$3 Billion Election

[Malacite]

That's what they're estimating at CNN right now for total money expected to be poured into the 2012 elections, with Obama hoping to raise $1B just for his own bid.


Seriously, what the fuck. Thank you Supreme Court for allowing this kind of bullshit to even be possible.

[Mezlo]

Re: $3 Billion Election

What would you rather the limitations be? I'm not saying 1B isn't excessive, but if people / companies want to contribute money, it's their right to.

[NightShayde]

Re: $3 Billion Election

I'd rather see no advertising at all. Political ads are almost never anything near accurate & the electorate seems to often be too dumb to figure that out. People should have to research candidates rather than having alarmist crap spoonfed to them.

I'd also like to have all the primaries on one day rather than dragging out the process for over a year.

Our political process is so freakin' broken. As soon as one election is over, the politicians pretty much have to start (unofficially) campaigning for the next one. Very few of the elected officials seem to give a rat's backside about the country or the people living in it -- all they want to do is stick it to the other party & make sure their side comes out on top next time around.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: $3 Billion Election

That's what they're estimating at CNN right now for total money expected to be poured into the 2012 elections, with Obama hoping to raise $1B just for his own bid.

Seriously, what the fuck. Thank you Supreme Court for allowing this kind of bullshit to even be possible.

And to think Obama pretended to be mad about this. Of course, the man has contempt for the Supreme Court even with two of his picks on the bench. Obama really would rather have one branch of government than the three we're supposed to be using - a monarch branch.

The whole crux to the issue of campaign funding is the First Amendment and that makes it a real touchy issue. Like it or not, money is used to promote a voice that people want heard. Limit contributions too much and you're essentially limiting speech.

Of course, those voices should be American voices in this case. Obama's #1 campaign contributor was British Petroleum (as in, not owned by Americans) and we saw how much they tried to play nice in the wake of last year's little disaster. Obama came out and acted tough, but he's their man so he couldn't come down too hard.

[Feba]

Re: $3 Billion Election

Obama really would rather have one branch of government than the three we're supposed to be using - a monarch branch.

0/10

I'd rather see no advertising at all.

While I can understand this, if there is NO advertising, how are politicians supposed to get their message to the populace?

The problem with electoral reform is that the people that it would benefit aren't the ones in a position to make the laws. It's also hard to find a point where you don't infringe on free speech rights (say, for "non-affiliated" groups to run ads), but keep the candidates in check.

[Mhurron]

Re: $3 Billion Election

While I can understand this, if there is NO advertising, how are politicians supposed to get their message to the populace?

The way it used to be done, through an electoral college.

Hey, wait a minute.

[Feba]

Re: $3 Billion Election

The way it used to be done, through an electoral college.

Uh. What?

[Mhurron]

Re: $3 Billion Election

It never ceases to amaze me the number of Americans who have to go through several civics classes to supposedly teach them about how their government works actually believe the popular vote for president elects the president.

[NightShayde]

Re: $3 Billion Election

I'll let them advertise in print media. I just don't want to see the never-ending string of commercials... and I certainly don't want the robocalls. I don't mind nearly as much if it's an actual person calling me -- but the robocalls make me want to harm the candidate they support (or the sponsors of the ballot initiative).

[Feba]

Re: $3 Billion Election

It never ceases to amaze me the number of Americans who have to go through several civics classes to supposedly teach them about how their government works actually believe the popular vote for president elects the president.

Yes, we understand how the electoral college works, thanks. That has nothing to do with the candidate speaking to the populace which is voting. You can have your debate on whether the electoral college is an antiquated, ineffective, and undemocratic implement elsewhere; the point is that it is hard to find a balance between free speech and unreasonable advertising funding. The electoral college has nothing to do with informing the electorate of the candidate's opinions.

[Malacite]

Re: $3 Billion Election

Isn't the electoral college an archaic system that the majority of Americans don't even understand? I've only read a little about it and it kinda made my head spin. I've heard countless times that it should just be scrapped (and really, what sense does it make to win the popular vote but still lose the election like Gore did?)


And as much as I like Obama, I really have to shake my head at him. I guess it was kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Had he stuck to his promises of campaign finance reform, he likely wouldn't have won the last election. However in doing so, I don't think you guys will ever see proper reform like we have in Canada or in Europe.


Our (Canada & Europe's) Governments have strict limits on just how much money can be spent over the course of a campaign (as well as time limits for said campaign, not this 2-year bullshit like last time int he U.S.). On top of that, in Canada the express consent of the Governor General is required before any federal elections can be held.

Let's just look at the numbers again real quick;

Obama spent something like $750 million to get elected, over the course of 2 years.

David Cameron had about $56,000 to work with over a course of 6 weeks. Even taking into account geographical & population differences, that's still exceedingly more efficient and sensible.


So I say again, fuck you Supreme Court of the U.S.A. for essentially giving corporations and other interest groups (many of them likely foreign) all the influence they can buy over U.S. politics. That's real healthy for the political discourse.

[Feba]

Re: $3 Billion Election

On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, I think we'll take our advice on running our democracy from countries that don't have a Queen.

/that has disadvantages too
//and again, electoral college is an entirely different subject from campaign financing.

[Malacite]

Re: $3 Billion Election

On the other hand, I think we'll take our advice on running our democracy from countries that don't have a Queen.

Don't how that's relevant to the discussion. The British Royal Family is largely (though not entirely) just a public figure head these days. Same deal here and in Japan. Regardless, silly cheap shot is silly - Your government goes about telling other countries to get their shit in order when your own system is currently the laughing stock of the global community.

[Feba]

Re: $3 Billion Election

Yeah, we don't have much problem telling dictators that shooting their own people is bad. We don't approve of that.

I don't remember the last time we got on Sweden's case for having problems in their elections.

[DakAttack]

Re: $3 Billion Election

Isn't the electoral college an archaic system that the majority of Americans don't even understand? I've only read a little about it and it kinda made my head spin. I've heard countless times that it should just be scrapped (and really, what sense does it make to win the popular vote but still lose the election like Gore did?)


And as much as I like Obama, I really have to shake my head at him. I guess it was kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Had he stuck to his promises of campaign finance reform, he likely wouldn't have won the last election. However in doing so, I don't think you guys will ever see proper reform like we have in Canada or in Europe.


Our (Canada & Europe's) Governments have strict limits on just how much money can be spent over the course of a campaign (as well as time limits for said campaign, not this 2-year bullshit like last time int he U.S.). On top of that, in Canada the express consent of the Governor General is required before any federal elections can be held.

Let's just look at the numbers again real quick;

Obama spent something like $750 million to get elected, over the course of 2 years.

David Cameron had about $56,000 to work with over a course of 6 weeks. Even taking into account geographical & population differences, that's still exceedingly more efficient and sensible.


So I say again, fuck you Supreme Court of the U.S.A. for essentially giving corporations and other interest groups (many of them likely foreign) all the influence they can buy over U.S. politics. That's real healthy for the political discourse.

Most corporations are foreign, as far as their taxes are concerned. We have a deficit, these guys are dodging taxes, and I wouldn't be surprised if their campaign donations help ensure future tax-dodging.

Fuck me, though, I know nothing of politics. They're all liars, I know that much.