2014 elections could be most expensive midterms in history

[TheDemSocialist]

It’s still 10 months from Election Day, but the amount of money raised to fund this year’s congressional races already numbers in the hundreds of millions.Early indicators suggest that 2014 could see the most expensive midterm elections in U.S. history. Candidates have officially collected $446 million through their campaign committees, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics. Most worrisome for many concerned about the avalanche of money in the political system is the cash originating from a few wealthy donors and corporations, then funneled through outside groups like trade associations, nonprofits affiliated with political causes, and commitees, or "super PACs," closely allied with candidates. These so-called independent expenditures have already topped $25.5 million for 2014 and the 2013 special elections. That figure outpaces the $21.2 million spent at this point in the 2012 cycle and dwarfs the $8.5 million spent by this time in 2010.
Much more is expected to flow in as candidates vie in competitive primaries and the general election season gets into full swing.
In 2010 and 2012, campaign spending in congressional elections hovered near an eye-popping $3.6 billion, including $1 billion in independent expenditures. Observers agree that the current upward trajectory of money spent on campaigns is fueled by these loosely independent outside groups, which were given rein to spend unlimited sums by the blockbuster Supreme Court Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010.
“I would guess that based on recent history, we would see a more expensive election cycle than in 2010,” said Sarah Bryner, research director for the Center for Responsive Politics, “and that I think is driven largely by what we call outside spending, super PAC spending and political activity by political nonprofits.”

Read more @: 2014 elections could be most expensive midterms in history | Al Jazeera America

The headline of this article illustrates perfectly what is wrong with our election system.

 

[The German]

Here in Euope in almoust every country the funds that can be used during elections are legaly restricted.

In Germany each party is legaly required to have the exact same screen time on TV.

In the UK, parties are forbidden from broadcasting TV adds in the first place.

A candidate should deserve his votes through convincing the electoreate with arguments, and not simply through buying votes.

 

[CalGun]

We still spend on elections in a 4 year time frame then we do on tooth paste and pizza.

 

[CalGun]

I prefer our constitutional right to free speech especially when it comes to elections.

Here in Euope in almoust every country the funds that can be used during elections are legaly


restricted.

In Germany each party is legaly required to have the exact same screen time on TV.

In the UK, parties are forbidden from broadcasting TV adds in the first place.

A candidate should deserve his votes through convincing the electoreate with arguments, and not simply through buying votes.

 

[Removable Mind]

Here in Euope in almoust every country the funds that can be used during elections are legaly restricted.

In Germany each party is legaly required to have the exact same screen time on TV.

In the UK, parties are forbidden from broadcasting TV adds in the first place.

A candidate should deserve his votes through convincing the electoreate with arguments, and not simply through buying votes.

Corporate/Special Interest has been granted personhood by the Supreme Court. They have unlimited donations. Consequently, the US government doesn't need the constituents...technically. But they play the game to satisfy the serfs.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I prefer our constitutional right to free speech especially when it comes to elections.

Money is purchasing power, not speech. If money=speech that means the rich have more free speech than the rest of us while the poor and middle class have little to no free speech.

 

[Anomalism]

Money is purchasing power, not speech. If money=speech that means the rich have more free speech than the rest of us while the poor and middle class have little to no free speech.

Some people are more equal than others.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Money is purchasing power, not speech. If money=speech that means the rich have more free speech than the rest of us while the poor and middle class have little to no free speech.

You people want to redistribute everything, even speech. Well, unlike tax money, we have a Constitutional right to speech.

 

[MMC]

First, the DNP.....needs to pay off their Debt from their last election. Before they can actually say they have some money.

In the meantime. Rove just keeps raking it in for the Repubs.

Bye bye Democrats.....Hit the Road Jack, don't come back no more no more.

 

[scatt]

Spending money is free speech, and spending more or less money does not means more or less free speech, it simply means free speech.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

You people want to redistribute everything, even speech. Well, unlike tax money, we have a Constitutional right to speech.

Hmmmm...
So if you have more money you have more speech? Is this correct?

 

[scatt]

So if you have more money you have more speech? Is this correct?

Nope.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Nope.

Then how is money considered speech and not purchasing power?

 

[scatt]

Then how is money considered speech and not purchasing power?

Spending money is a form of speech, and purchasing power is a reference to how valuable a currency is.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Spending money is a form of speech, and purchasing power is a reference to how valuable a currency is.

So then if you have more money to spend you must have more free speech? How is that not the case?
And purchasing power is this: "Purchasing power (sometimes retroactively called adjusted for inflation) is the number of goods or services that can be purchased with a unit of currency." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power

 

[scatt]

So then if you have more money to spend you must have more free speech? How is that not the case?
And purchasing power is this: "Purchasing power (sometimes retroactively called adjusted for inflation) is the number of goods or services that can be purchased with a unit of currency." Purchasing power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No. Spending money is a form of speech, one word or a thousand is speech.

I said that in my own words, which was correct, because I knew the word.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

No. Spending money is a form of speech, one word or a thousand is speech.

I said that in my own words, which was correct, because I knew the word.

Then explain the concept of if spending money is a form of speech then how is; if person A spends $50 on one candidate and person B spends $40,000 to another how is person and person A's income is $25,000 yearly and person B's $500,000 yearly, how does person B not have more free speech cuz he can afford to spend more on a given election?

 

[Perotista]

Read more @: 2014 elections could be most expensive midterms in history | Al Jazeera America

The headline of this article illustrates perfectly what is wrong with our election system. [/FONT][/COLOR]

We have the best government money can buy. The problem besides citizens united is starting in the 1960's with campaign reform, each reform has just made the situation worse. Back then there was no limits on giving or spending. But all the money was channeled or given to the candidates or the party. There were no such thing as advocacy groups, no pacs or super pacs, no money bundlers. Each party and or candidate was responsible for every political ad/commercial ran. I think with each party and candidate individually responsible, there were hardly no negative or attack political ads either.

Of course TV had just come into its own and ads were limited to the big three over the air networks as none other existed. Still we were not bombarded with ad after ad after ad. They say the road to Hades is paved with gold, it seems that way with campaign finance reform. For ever law or limit placed upon the candidates and party, there were ten ways around them. The sad thing is I think we were a lot better off before any reform even began. Rather intentional or not, loop holes and a myriad of ways around any new reform law was always available.

but the genie is out of the bottle, there is no way to stop the money from special interests of all sorts from flowing in to the coffers of the two major parties. There is no way to stop these supposedly advocacy ads or ads run by interested third parties in favor of the candidates they want to win. what is worse there is now no one responsible for the content of the ads. Lies, half truths and down right mud slinging will flood the airways. Issues, stances, ideas, solutions to our problems, visions for our future are all things of the past as each candidate and party, along with their outside organizations who support them will try to make their opposition look like the devil reincarnated and the opposition will return the favor trying to make them look worse than the devil reincarnated.

In the end, the voter is left to chose between the devil and Satan without knowing his ideas, solutions, visions or even stances on the issues. Yep, the best government money can buy.

 

[scatt]

Then explain the concept of if spending money is a form of speech then how is; if person A spends $50 on one candidate and person B spends $40,000 to another how is person and person A's income is $25,000 yearly and person B's $500,000 yearly, how does person B not have more free speech cuz he can afford to spend more on a given election?

Again, spending money is a form of free speech. You cannot have more or less free speech than someone else because free speech exists or it doesn't. Person A can take out an ad in a newspaper ridiculing some protected group, and person B can pay for an ad on the radio espousing contempt for some protected group, and person C (who makes elventyjillion dollars a second) can pay for an ad on television espousing hatred for some protected group, and they all have free speech.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Again, spending money is a form of free speech. You cannot have more or less free speech than someone else because free speech exists or it doesn't. Person A can take out an ad in a newspaper ridiculing some protected group, and person B can pay for an ad on the radio espousing contempt for some protected group, and person C (who makes elventyjillion dollars a second) can pay for an ad on television espousing hatred for some protected group, and they all have free speech.

You didnt answer my question. How does person B not have more free speech cuz he can afford to spend more on a given election?
If spending money infarct is speech and not purchasing power how is someone that earns more money and therefore has the power to spend more money not possessing more free speech?

 

[Perotista]

Corporate/Special Interest has been granted personhood by the Supreme Court. They have unlimited donations. Consequently, the US government doesn't need the constituents...technically. But they play the game to satisfy the serfs.

the voters themselves now become a necessary evil. elections now have boiled down to which party can brainwash the most voters into voting for them. Which party can scare the most people, which party can paint the other as the most evil. Substance need not apply.

 

[scatt]

How does person B not have more free speech cuz he can afford to spend more on a given election?

Again, spending money is a form of free speech. You cannot have more or less free speech than someone else because free speech exists or it doesn't. Person A can take out an ad in a newspaper ridiculing some protected group, and person B can pay for an ad on the radio espousing contempt for some protected group, and person C (who makes elventyjillion dollars a second) can pay for an ad on television espousing hatred for some protected group, and they all have free speech.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Again, spending money is a form of free speech.You cannot have more or less free speech than someone else because free speech exists or it doesn't.

If spending money infarct is speech and not purchasing power how is someone that earns more money and therefore has the power to spend more money not possessing more free speech?
If its universal how can we say that something that is so unequal such as income and money distribution, free speech when infact more people have more money? How can we say you giving that money to candidate x, y, or z free speech when you can give more but another person cant?

Person A can take out an ad in a newspaper ridiculing some protected group,

Cant afford it.

and person B can pay for an ad on the radio espousing contempt for some protected group,

Because infact they have more money.

and person C (who makes elventyjillion dollars a second) can pay for an ad on television espousing hatred for some protected group, and they all have free speech.

Because they can afford it.

 

[scatt]

If spending money infarct is speech and not purchasing power how is someone that earns more money and therefore has the power to spend more money not possessing more free speech?
If its universal how can we say that something that is so unequal such as income and money distribution, free speech when infact more people have more money? How can we say you giving that money to candidate x, y, or z free speech when you can give more but another person cant?

Again, spending money is a form of free speech. You cannot have more or less free speech than someone else because free speech exists or it doesn't.

Purchasing power is based on one unit (a dollar in this case), stop referencing it.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Again, spending money is a form of free speech. You cannot have more or less free speech than someone else because free speech exists or it doesn't.

I'm not arguing that it doesnt exist or not.

Lets take this step by step.

One person can have more money than the next person correct?