Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics

LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-24-2004, 07:51 AM   #1 (permalink)
Location: portland, or
143 Million things to think about....

How does everybody feel about Bush having a record $143million in campaign money? While everybody else is broke...Thoughts?

Heaven, n 1: the abode of God and the angels and the souls of those who have gained salvation 2: any place of complete bliss and delight and peace [syn: eden, paradise, nirvana, promised land, Shangri-la]

joshibahn is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 07:58 AM   #2 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
pan6467's Avatar
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Shows why campaign finance is needed. Also shows us that someone better truly start looking into where these contributions are coming from.

Don't know, just doesn't seem very practical to me that a company going bankrupt and laying off thousands should be spending big bucks on a presidential campaign, unless of course they are planning on getting something in return. Which then goes against our supposed electoral system and the office where the people and not businesses are supposed to come first.
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 07:58 AM   #3 (permalink)
I think we need some serious campaign finance reform to happen
pinklily is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 08:31 AM   #4 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Superbelt's Avatar
Location: Grantville, Pa
He will need every penny of it to stay competitive in the upcoming election.

And yes, we need serious reforms.
An election by the people.... We should have 300 dollar contribution limits. Not many people can afford to donate 2k.
We also need to stop the soft money as well. Elections shouldn't be determined by who can effectively afford to blanket the nation with campaign ads.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 08:44 AM   #5 (permalink)
Location: NJ
I feel the same about it as I feel about every other candidate for political office in the country needing to raise unbelievable amounts of cash for elections.

Reforms are needed across the board. Of course it won't happen because both major parties are too entrenched in the current system.
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 09:14 AM   #6 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
Ustwo's Avatar
no, No, NO!

This is wrong on so many levels.

Not only does it infringe on the rights of the people (who do you think gives this money?), it also just shifts everything over to the press. Would you want the press core to be the only source of general information? If they don't cover it, its not known? A majority of the Republican money comes from individual donations, and you want to stifle that?

The only reform I want to see is a truth in advertising for political adds. You can't lie about a car but you can lie about yourself or your opponent.
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 09:23 AM   #7 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Superbelt's Avatar
Location: Grantville, Pa
Let everyone give money, just put a $300 limit for political contributions to any one individual for the year.

That allows americans to have their voice. It allows ALL americans to have an equal voice.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 09:30 AM   #8 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
Ustwo's Avatar
Originally posted by Superbelt
Let everyone give money, just put a $300 limit for political contributions to any one individual for the year.

That allows americans to have their voice. It allows ALL americans to have an equal voice.
What $1000 is to much?

I know people who would say $300 is to much for them.

You are just lowering the totals, you change nothing.
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 09:33 AM   #9 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Superbelt's Avatar
Location: Grantville, Pa
Yes 1000 is too much for many middle class and lower, people.
Bring it down so that you need many people to contribute to you to get any kind of referrendum on your popularity and the publics want to see you elected.

Say what you will about Howard Dean, but the way he ran a campaign, and raised money is how every candidate should be forced to use exclusively. He was truly a people campaign. And it was successful. Lots of people giving 10 - 25 - 100 dollars only to him. Or giving small amounts of 10 or so on a recurring basis.
That's a people campaign.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 09:44 AM   #10 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
Ustwo's Avatar
You are going to get a kick out of this.
The Nine Dwarfs" pursuing the Democratic Party presidential nomination have been relentlessly asserting that the Republican Party is beholden to the wealthy. It turns out, however, that it is the Democratic Party that has been addicted to the million-dollar contributions from the nation's fat cats. A recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan campaign-finance research organization, reveals that the Democratic Party gobbled up an astounding 92 percent of all individual contributions totaling $1 million or more during the 2001-02 election cycle. Meanwhile, it was the Republican Party that received 64 percent of all individual contributions less than $200 per donor. The CRP study reviewed more than 1.4 million individual contributions of $200 or more given to congressional candidates, parties and leadership political action committees, which are fund-raising organizations controlled by members of Congress. The analysis included individuals' hard-money contributions, which are limited by law, and the unlimited, essentially unregulated soft-money donations made by individuals. The study involved individual contributions totaling $1.36 billion. Republicans raised $773 million, and Democrats raised $584 million. Individual contributions below $200 amounted to $523 million. The vast majority of these donations represent personal checks for $100, $50, $25 and less, often written in response to direct-mail appeals. Clearly, these are not wealthy people. Republicans captured $333 million, or 64 percent at the less-than-$200 level, while Democrats managed to rake in $182 million, or 35 percent. For individual contributions between $200 and $999 not exactly a definitive measure of wealth Republicans solidly outdistanced Democrats ($75 million to $47 million). Indeed, only in the truly fat-cat segments ($100,000-$999,999 and $1-million-and-above) did the self-described "party of the people" outraise the GOP. From individuals who contributed $1 million or more, Democrats collected $48 million, or 1,100 percent more than the Republicans' $4 million. Moreover, Democrats enjoyed a monopoly among individual contributors who donated $2 million or more. Cumulatively, that ever-so-special fat-cat cohort which included a mere six white males (Haim Saban, $9.3 million; Fred Eychaner, $7.4 million; Stephen Bing, $6.7 million; Steven Kirsch, $3.2 million; Bernard Schwartz, $2.3 million; and Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine, $2 million) donated more than $30 million to the Democratic Party. By all indications, the McCain-Feingold self-styled campaign-finance-reform bill that Democrats wholeheartedly embraced will increase the Republican fund-raising advantages. To wit: the $34.2 million that President Bush raised during the second quarter exceeded the fund-raising of all "The Nine Dwarfs" combined.
You see this was the amusing thing about campaign finance reform. I was NOT for it because of free speech reasons, but I knew it would help my party more. Ironic data isn't it. The party of the wealthy is paid for by the 'middle class' and the party of the 'people' is paid for by the wealthy.
I have changed my mind, I am ALL for your idea

P.S. Don't worry about Kerry, I'm sure a rich white male or two will come to his rescue once he has the nomination.
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 10:01 AM   #11 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Superbelt's Avatar
Location: Grantville, Pa
Yes, I am well aware of all that. And still I am in favor of campaign finance reform because it takes the special interests out of the democratic party and forces them to rely on us.

I am happy with this even though it gives us an immediate handicap, something I hope we can erase in several years time as the democrats adjust to asking for small contributions.

I am glad I have "turned" you, please stay for the ride.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 10:45 AM   #12 (permalink)
tecoyah's Avatar
I think bush has already been pain for his next round of appointments to office.Each dollar is a favor waiting to be given, not that the democrats wont have the same commitments. I guess the difference is the "level" of favors. I could be wrong but, I dont think any previous administration was this riddled with officials who bought there way into positions thru either financing or affiliation. Virtually every member of the cabinet, is a former buisiness partner, of affiliated with a contributor.
What ever happened to getting the most qualified individual for the job?
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 11:11 AM   #13 (permalink)
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Ustwo- don't shoot facts across the bow without expecting them to come back and haunt you:


% from Donors of $2,000+
Bush - 65% Dean - 16%

No. of $2,000+ Contributors
Bush - 42,649 Dean - 2,657

% from Donors of $200 or less
Bush - 16% Dean - 58%

Superbelt's point was that Dean had done exactly what these numbers show- get the little guy involved at a cash level they could afford. Of course, he lost, so it's not a success story.
Tomservo is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 11:17 AM   #14 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
Superbelt's Avatar
Location: Grantville, Pa
But he didn't fail from lack of fundraising.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 11:30 AM   #15 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
Bush should save his campaign money.
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 12:59 PM   #16 (permalink)
Scipio's Avatar
Location: College
Historically, by which I mean under the pre-McCain-Feingold fundraising environment, the Democratic party tended to rely on large donations from wealthy individuals. Both parties benefitted from the theoretically unlimited soft money donations that the system permitted.

Now, however, the key is hard money. The individual donation limit was raised from $1000 to $2000. Ads are more closely regulated, and candidates can no longer accept soft money. The approaches to operating in this fundraising system have varied.

Bush draws the lion's share of his cash from large donations. Perhaps you've heard that individuals who raise large amounts of money for the campaign are given special status as "rangers," or as "pioneers." They do this by having $2000 a plate dinners where a bunch of wealthy donors get together, see GWB, and write a check. Considerable networking skills are required to pull off these events, and they aren't limited to either party, though Bush has had greater success with them.

I take issue with the misleading statistics that Ustwo's article provided. First, the numbers are entirely from the old fundraising system. Second, they are aggregate numbers from a midterm election. They don't accurately reflect what is going on in fundraising under the new system or under this election. The editorial is really quite irrelevant to the question at hand: what about Bush's campaign war chest? What does that say about the system?

Clearly, when the public finance system does more harm than good to competitive candidates, something's going wrong. Fundraising is part of the modern campaign; I think it would be nice to move over to a system of complete public financing of presidential elections, but it would be a difficult and expensive program to administer. For better or for worse, contributing to a campaign is a fundamental democratic act, and I'm not sure that it should be removed from the system. We ought to do what we can to prevent any kind of quid pro quo, but that is also difficult to do. As I noted, an individual can only contribute two grand. Or can they? I might organize a fundraiser that diverts $150,000 to a campaign. Would I expect something in return?

Last note: the democratic candidates have together raised nearly as much money as Bush has. They've spent more of it, but it's only the primary. Should Kerry, who opted out of public finance, win the nomination, I expect that he will be able to compete with Bush head-on in the money department. Like Trippi always said: 2 million donors, $100 each. The internet is how you do it.
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."
Scipio is offline  

143, million, things

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:46 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360